— b 




iiHi 



ii Hi 

lllil 

1 1 S 1 1 



mm 

m 




dm 

i ll 

J99S 

HtnlufuiiilKfut! 



MM 



o . o ^ ^P J 



'' ,*-.<• 



*3 K 



^ / 




< '' ' « v * /\ 



'^^X 



r ^ * 
V .**' 






x° ©. 



.^ x 



^ ^ 



-y 






V 



■^ I . -1 : ; ■•-. O 

v 0o, J y I 









^ 



2 , « 5 .0' 












% ^y:::">% yy ,-:^ 




THE 



ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 



ENGLISH LANGUAGE 



EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. 



BY THE REV. ALEX. CROMBIE, 



LL.D. F.R.S. M.R.S.L. & F.Z.S. 



THE FOURTH EDITION, 



LONDON : 
PRINTED FOR TAYLOR AND WALTON, 

BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. 
30, UPPER GOWER-STREET. 

1836. 



•-G7 



48 6555 

JUL 2 3 1942 



LONDON: 

PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENT LEY, 

Dorset Street, Fleet Street. 



£> 






PREFACE 



TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



The success,, with which the principles of any 
art or science are investigated, is generally propor- 
tioned to the number of those, whose labours are 
directed to its cultivation and improvement. In- 
quiry is necessarily the parent of knowledge ; error 
itself, proceeding from discussion, leads ultimately 
to the establishment of truth. 

Were we to estimate our progress in the know- 
ledge of English grammar from the number of 
works already published on the subject, we should 
perhaps be prompted to infer, that in a field so 
circumscribed, and at the same time so often and 
so ably explored, no object worthy of notice could 
have escaped attention. And yet in this, as in 

A 2 



IV PREFACE TO 

every other art or science, strict examination will 
convince us, that, though much may have been 
accomplished, still much remains, to stimulate the 
industry, and exercise the ingenuity, of future in- 
quirers. The author indeed is fully persuaded, 
that it is impossible to examine the English lan- 
guage with any degree of critical accuracy, and 
not perceive, that its syntactical principles espe- 
cially are yet but imperfectly illustrated, and that 
there are many of its idioms, which have entirely 
eluded the attention of our grammarians. That 
these defects are all supplied by the present work, 
the author is far from having the vanity to believe. 
That he has examined a few peculiarities, and elu- 
cidated some principles, which have escaped the 
observation of other grammarians, he trusts the 
intelligent reader will remark. 

The Treatise, the second edition of which now 
solicits the notice of the public, is intended chiefly 
for the improvement of those, who have made some 
advancement in classic literature. That an ac- 
quaintance with Greek and Latin facilitates the 
acquisition of every other language, and that by a 



THE SECOND EDITION. V 

knowledge of these the classical scholar is there- 
fore materially assisted in attaining a critical ac- 
quaintance with his native tongue, it would argue 
extreme perversity to deny. But that an extensive 
knowledge of Greek and Latin is often associated 
with an imperfect and superficial acquaintance with 
the principles of the English language, is a fact, 
which experience demonstrates, and it would not 
be diffiult to explain. To make any tolerable 
progress in a classical course, without acquiring a 
general knowledge of English grammar, is indeed 
impossible; yet to finish that course, without any 
correct acquaintance with the mechanism of the 
English language, or any critical knowledge of its 
principles, is an occurrence neither singular nor 
surprising. No language whatever can be critically 
learned, but by careful study of its general struc- 
ture, and peculiar principles. To assist the classical 
scholar in attaining a correct acquaintance with 
English grammar, is the chief, though not the sole 
end, for which the present Treatise was composed. 
That it is, in some degree, calculated to answer 
this purpose, the author, from its reception, is 
willing to believe. 



VI PREFACE TO 

His obligations to his predecessors in the same 
department of literature, he feels it his duty to ac- 
knowledge. He trusts at the same time, that the 
intelligent reader will perceive, that he has neither 
copied with servility, nor implicitly adopted the 
opinions of others ; but has, in every question, 
exercised his own judgment, in observance of that 
respect, which all men owe to truth, and consist- 
ently, he hopes, with that deference, which is con- 
fessedly due to transcendent talents. 

The Treatise, he believes, contains some original 
observations. That all of these deserve to be ho- 
noured with a favourable verdict in the court of 
Criticism, he has neither the presumption to in- 
sinuate, nor the vanity to suppose. If they be 
found subservient to the elucidation of any con- 
troverted point, be the ultimate decision what it 
may, the author will attain his aim. 

The work having been composed amidst the so- 
licitudes and distractions of a laborious profession, 
the author has reason to apprehend, that some 
verbal inaccuracies may have escaped his attention. 



THE SECOND EDITION. Vll 

But, in whatever other respects the diction may 
be faulty, he trusts at least, that it is not charge- 
able with obscurity ; and that he may be able to 
say, in the humble language of the poet, 



" Ergo, fungar vice cotis, acutum 



Reddere quae ferrum valet exsors ipsa secandi." 

Hor. Art. Poet, 



Greenwich, 
3d July, 1809. 



PREFACE 



TO THE THIRD EDITION. 



The following work, which has been for some 
time out of print, having been favoured with the 
gratifying approbation of the Rev. Professor Dale, 
and selected by that learned and worthy preceptor, 
as one of the text books for the class of English 
literature in the University of London, a new edi- 
tion has become necessary. The author's time and 
attention having been recently devoted to another 
publication, which was not completed until it be- 
came indispensable that this volume should be sent 
to press, the only additions here introduced are 
such as occurred to the author while the work was 
proceeding through the hands of the printer. They 
will be found, however, to be in number not incon- 
siderable ; and it is hoped, that in quality they will 



X PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 

be thought not unworthy of the student's attention. 
They consist chiefly of examples of solecism and 
impropriety, accompanied with such critical re- 
marks as these errors have suggested, and such 
illustrations as they seemed to require. This mode 
of enlargement the author has preferred, persuaded 
of the truth of Dr. Lowth's observation, that one of 
the most successful methods of conveying instruc- 
tion is, " to teach what is right, by showing what 
is wrong." 



York Terrace, Regent's Park, 
28th Sept. 1829. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Page 
Of Language in general, and the English Alphabet . 1 



PART I. ■ 

Of Etymology . . . .13 

CHAPTER I. 
Of the Noun . . . .17 

CHAPTER II. 

Of the Article . . . .40 

CHAPTER III. 
Of the Pronoun . . . .53 



CHAPTER IV. 



Of the Adjective 



CHAPTER V. 
Of the Verb . . . .82 

CHAPTER VI. 

Of the Participle . . . .109 

CHAPTER VII. 
Of Adverbs .... 154 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Of Prepositions .... 157 



Xll 



Of Conjunctions 



Of Interjections 



Of Syntax. 



contents. 



CHAPTER IX. 



CHAPTER X. 



PART II, 



PART III. 



Page 
166 

174 



176 



CHAPTER I. 




Canons of Criticism 


. 247 


CHAPTER II. 




Critical Remarks and Illustrations. 




Sect. i. — The Noun 


. 261 


Sect. ii. — The Adjective 


. 270 


Sect. hi. — The Pronoun 


. 282 


Sect. iv. — The Verb 


. 293 


Sect. v. — The Adverb 


. 315 


Sect. vi. — The Preposition 


. 322 


Sect. vh. — The Conjunction 


. 326 



ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 



THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Language consists of intelligible signs, and is the 
medium by which the mind communicates its thoughts. 
It is either articulate or inarticulate ; artificial or natural. 
The former is peculiar to man ; the latter is common to 
all animals. By inarticulate language, we mean those 
instinctive sounds, or cries, by which the several tribes 
of inferior creatures are enabled to express their sensa- 
tions and desires. By articulate language is understood a 
system of expression, composed of simple sounds, differ- 
ently modified by the organs of speech, and variously com- 
bined. 

Man, like every other animal, has a natural language 
intelligible to all of his own species. This language, how- 
ever, is extremely defective, being confined entirely to the 
general expression of joy, grief, fear, and the other passions 
or emotions of the mind ; it is, therefore, wholly inade- 
quate to the purposes of rational intercourse, and the 
infinitely diversified ideas of an intelligent being. Hence 
arises the necessity of an artificial 4 or articulate language; 
a necessity coeval with the existence of man in his rudest 
state, increasing also with the enlargement of his ideas, 

B 



% INTRODUCTION. 

and the improvement of his mind. Man, therefore, was 
formed capable of speech. Nature has furnished him with 
the necessary organs, and with ingenuity to render them 
subservient to his purposes. And though at first his vo- 
cabulary was doubtless scanty, as his wants were simple, 
and his exigencies few, his language and his intellect would 
naturally keep pace. As the latter improved, the former 
would be enlarged. 

Oral language, we have reason to suppose, continued 
long to be the only medium by which knowledge could be 
imparted, or social intercourse maintained. But, in the 
progress of science, various methods were devised for 
attaining a more permanent and more extensive vehicle 
of thought. Of these, the earliest were, as some think, 
picture-writing and hieroglyphics. Visible objects and 
external events were delineated by pictures, while imma- 
terial things were emblematically expressed by figures 
representative of such physical objects as bore some con- 
ceived analogy or resemblance to the thing to be expressed. 
These figures or devices were termed hieroglyphics.* It 
is obvious, however, that this medium of communication 

* Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an alphabet, and 
that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical writing. " The wisdom 
and simple manners of the first men," says he, " would incline me to 
think, that they must have had an alphabet ; for hieroglyphic characters 
imply quaintness and witticism." In this reasoning I cannot concur. 
Alphabetic writing is indeed simple, when known; so also are most 
inventions. But, simple and easy as it appears to us, we have only to 
examine the heart itself, to be fully convinced, that science, genius, and 
industry, must have been combined in inventing it. Nay, the learned 
author himself acknowledges, " that though of easy acquisition to us, it is 
in itself neither easy nor obvious." He even admits, " that alphabetical 
writing must be so remote from the conceptions of those who never heard 
of it, that without divine aid it would seem to be unsearchable and im- 
possible/' I observe also that in passing from picture-writing to hiero- 
glyphical expression, and in transferring the signs of physical to intellectual 
and invisible objects, fanciful conceits would naturally take place. It is 
true also that the manners of the antediluvians were simple ; but it is 



INTRODUCTION. 3 

must not only have embarrassed by its obscurity, but 
must have also been extremely deficient in variety of ex- 
pression. 

At length oral language, by an effort of ingenuity 
which must ever command admiration, was resolved into 
its simple or elementary sounds, and these were character- 
ized by appropriate symbols.* Words, the signs of thought, 
Came thus to be represented by letters, or characters arbi- 
trarily formed, to signify the different sounds of which the 
words were severally composed. The simplest elementary 
part of written language is, therefore, a letter; and the 
elements or letters into which the words of any language 
may be analysed, form the necessary alphabet of that 
language. 

not from prudence nor simplicity of manners, but from human genius, 
gradually improved, that we are to expect inventions, which require the 
greatest efforts of the human mind. 

* Cicero regards the invention of alphabetic writing as an evidence of 
the celestial character of the soul ; and many have ascribed its origin to 
the inspiration of the Deity. To resort to supernatural causes, to account 
for the production of any rare or striking event, is repugnant to the 
principles of true philosophy. And how wonderful soever the art of 
alphabetic writing may appear, there can be no necessity for referring its 
introduction to divine inspiration, if the inventive powers of man be not 
demonstrably unequal to the task. Picture-writing is generally believed 
to have been the earliest mode of recording events, or communicating in- 
formation by permanent signs. This was probably succeeded by hiero- 
glyphical characters. How these pictures and hieroglyphical devices 
would, either through negligence or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary 
their form, and lose their resemblance to the objects which they repre- 
sented, may be easily conceived. Hence that association, which existed 
between the sign and the thing signified, being founded in resemblance, 
would in process of time be entirely dissolved. This having taken place, 
hieroglyphical characters would naturally be converted into a mere verbal 
denotation, representative of words and not of things. Hence, as Goguet, 
in his work, De POrigine des Loix, &c. reasonably conjectures, would 
arise by a partial and easy analysis, a syllabic mode of denotation, which 
would naturally introduce a literal alphabet. This conjecture must seem 
highly probable, when it is considered, that both a verbal and syllabic 
mode of notation are still practised by some Eastern nations. 

B 2 



4 INTRODUCTION. 

In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters. 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. 

abcdefghij klmnopqrstuvwxyz. 

Of these there are six vowels, or letters which by them- 
selves make every one a perfect sound. The remaining 
twenty are called consonants, or letters which cannot be 
sounded without a vowel. 

This alphabet is both redundant and defective. It is 
redundant : for of the vowels, the letters i and y are in 
sound the same : one of them therefore is unnecessary. Of 
the consonants, the articulator c having sometimes the 
sound of k, and sometimes of s, one of these must be un- 
necessary. Q, having in all cases the sound of k, may 
likewise be deemed superfluous. W appears to me in 
every respect the same with the vowel u (oo), and is there- 
fore supernumerary.* The double consonant x might be 
denoted by the combination of its component letters, gs 
or ks. 

It is to be observed also, that g, when it has the soft 
sound, is a double consonant, and performs the same office 
as the letter j ; each having a sound compounded of the 
sounds of d and the French j. Thus, g in general has the 
same sound asj in join. .7, however, is not, as some have 
supposed, resolvable into two letters, for we have no 
character to express the simple sound of the French j, of 
which, with the consonant d, the sound of the English j is 
compounded. To resolve it into dg, as some have done, 
is therefore an error ; as the soft g, without the aid of the 
other consonant, is precisely identical, in respect to sound, 
with the consonant j. The letter h is no consonant ; it is 
merely the note of aspiration. 

* I am aware, that in considering the letters y and w to be the same 
with i and u (oo), I maintain an opinion, the truth of which has been 
disputed. The reasons, however, which have been assigned for rejecting 
it do not appear to me satisfactory. 



INTRODUCTION. 5 

Our alphabet is likewise defective. There are nine sim- 
ple vowel sounds, for which we have only six characters, 
two of which, as it has been already observed, perform the 
same office. The simple vowel sotinds are heard in these 
words, 

Hall, hat, hate, met, mete, fin, hop, hope, but, full. 

Some of these characters occasionally perform the office 
of diphthongs. Thus, in the word Jine, the vowel i has the 
diphthongal sound of the letters a e, as these are pro- 
nounced in French ; and the vowel u frequently represents 
the diphthong eu (e-oo), as fume (fe-oom.) 

There are, besides, four different consonants for which 
we have no proper letters ; namely, the initial conso- 
nant in the word thin, the initial consonant in then, the 
sibilating sound of sh, and the final consonant (marked wg), 
as in the word sing. 

Consonants are generally divided into mutes and semi- 
vowels. The mutes are those which entirely, and at once, 
obstruct the sound of the vowel, and prevent its continu- 
ation. These are called perfect mutes. Those which do 
not suddenly obstruct it are called imperfect mutes. 

Semi-vowels are those consonants which do not entirely 
obstruct the voice; but whose sounds may be continued 
at pleasure, thus partaking of the nature of vowels. 

The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly to 
explain. 

A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, or it may 
be terminated, either by discontinuing the vocal effort, in 
which case it is not articulated by any consonant, as in 
pronouncing the vowel o ; or by changing the conformation 
of the mouth, or relative position of the organs of speech, 
so that the vowel sound is lost by articulation, as in pro- 
nouncing the syllable or. It is to be observed also, that a 
vowel may be articulated, not only by being terminated 
by a consonant, as in the example now given, but likewise 
by introducing the sound with that position of the organs, 



6 INTRODUCTION. 

by which it had, in the former case, been terminated, as 
in pronouncing the syllable ro. 

In pronouncing the consonants, there are five distin- 
guishable positions of the organs.* The first is the appli- 
cation of the lips to each other, so as to close the mouth. 
Thus are formed the consonants p, b, and m. 

In the second position, the under lip is applied to the 
fore teeth of the upper jaw ; and in this manner we pro- 
nounce the consonants f and v. 

The third position is, when the tongue is applied to the 
fore teeth ; and thus we pronounce th. 

In the fourth position we apply the fore part of the 
tongue to the fore part of the palate, and by this applica- 
tion we pronounce the letters t, d, s, z, r, /, n. 

The fifth position is, when the middle part of the tongue 
is applied to the palate, and thus we pronounce k, the hard 
sound of g (as in ga), sh, j, and ng. 

In the first position we have three letters, of which the 
most simple, and indeed the only articulator, being abso- 
lutely mute, is p. In the formation of this letter, nothing 
is required but the sudden closing of the mouth, and stop- 
ping the vowel sound ; or the sound may be articulated 
by the sudden opening of the lips, in order to emit the 
compressed sound of the vowel. 

Now, if instead of simply expressing the vowel sound 
by opening the lips, in saying for example pa, we shall 
begin to form a guttural sound, the position being still 
preserved ; then, on opening the lips, we shall pronounce 
the syllable ba. The guttural sound is produced by a 
compression of the larynx, or windpipe ; and is that kind 
of murmur, as Bishop Wilkin s expresses it, which is heard 
in the throat, before the breath is emitted with the vocal 
sound. B, therefore, though justly considered as a mute, 
is not a perfect mute. 

* The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound ; but merely 
the organ for modulating and articulating the specific sounds. 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

The mouth being kept in the same position, and the 
breath being emitted through the nostrils, the letter m is 
produced. 

In the first position, therefore, we have a perfect mute 
p, having no audible sound ; a labial and liquid consonant 
m, capable of a continued sound ; and between these two 
extremes we have the letter b, somewhat audible, though 
different from any vocal sound. 

Here then are three things to be distinguished. 1st, 
The perfect mute, having no sound of any kind : 2dly, 
The perfect consonant, having not only a proper, but con- 
tinued sound : and 3dly, Between these extremes we find 
the letter b, having a proper sound, but so limited, that, 
in respect to the perfect consonant, it may be termed a 
mute, and in relation to the perfect mute may be properly 
termed imperfect. 

In the second position, we have the letters f and v, 
neither of which are perfect mutes. The letter/ is formed 
by having the aspiration not altogether interrupted, but 
emitted forcibly between the fore teeth and under lip. 
This is the simple articulation in this position. If to this 
we join the guttural sound, we shall have the letter v, a 
letter standing in nearly the same relation to/*, as b and m, 
in the first position, stand to p. The only difference be- 
tween/and v is, that, in the former, the compression of 
the teeth and under lip is not so strong as in the latter ; 
and that the former is produced by the breath only, and 
the latter by the voice and breath combined. 

The consonant f 9 therefore, though not a mute like p, 
in having the breath absolutely confined, may notwith- 
standing be considered as such, consistently with that 
principle, by which a mute is understood to be an aspira- 
tion without guttural sound. 

Agreeably to the distinction already made, v may be 
termed a perfect consonant, and/ an imperfect one, having 
no proper sound, though audible. Thus we have four 
distinctions in our consonantal alphabet ; namely, of perfect 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

and imperfect consonants ; perfect and imperfect mutes : 
thus, 

p is a perfect mute, having no sound. 

b an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but limited. 

m a perfect consonant, having sound, and continued. 

f an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but audible. 

In the third position we have th as heard in the words 
then and thin, formed by placing the tip of the tongue be- 
tween the teeth, and pressing it against the upper teeth. 
The only difference between these articulations is, that, 
\\kef and v, the one is formed by the breath only, and the 
other by the breath and voice together.* 

Here also may be distinguished the perfect and the im- 
perfect consonant ; for the th in thin has no sound, but is 
audible, whereas the th in this, there, has a sound, and that 
continued.-)* 

In the fourth position there are several consonants 
formed. 

1st, If the breath be stopped, by applying the fore part 
of the tongue forcibly to that part of the palate which is 
contiguous to the fore teeth, we produce the perfect mute 
t, having neither aspiration nor guttural sound. By ac- 
companying this operation of the tongue and palate with 
the guttural sound, we shall pronounce the letter d, which, 
like b of the first position, may be considered as a mute, 
though not perfect. For in pronouncing ed, the tongue 
at first gently touches the gum, and is gradually pressed 
closer, till the sound is obstructed ; whereas in pronouncing 
et, the tongue is at once pressed so close, that the sound is 
instantly intercepted. 

2dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up towards the 
upper gum, so as not to touch it, and thus the breath be 
cut by the sharp point of the tongue passing through the 

* The sound of th in thin, is usually marked with a stroke through 
the h, to distinguish it from its other sound ; thus, t flick. This distinction 
is by some writers reversed. 

f Hutton's Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, vol.ii. p. 688. 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

narrow chink left between that and the gum, we pronounce 
the sibilating sound of 5. If we accompany this operation 
with a guttural sound, as in b, v, and th in then, we shall 
pronounce the letter % ; the same difference subsisting be- 
tween s and z as between y* and v, p and b, tfi and th. 

3dly, If we make the tip of the tongue vibrate rapidly 
between the upper and lower jaw, so as not to touch 
the latter, and the former but gently, we shall pronounce 
the letter r. The more closely and forcibly the tongue 
vibrates against the upper jaw, the stronger will the sound 
be rendered. It is formed about the same distance from 
the teeth as the letter d, or rather somewhat behind it. 

4thly, If the end of the tongue be gently applied to 
the fore part of the palate, a little behind the seat of the 
letter e?, and somewhat before the place of r, and the 
voice be suffered to glide gently over the sides of the 
tongue, we shall pronounce the letter /. Here the breadth 
of the tongue is contracted, and a space left for the breath 
to pass from the upper to the under part of the tongue, in 
forming this the most vocal of all the consonants. 

5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the formation of the 
preceding consonant, be stopped, by extending the tongue 
to its natural breadth, so as to intercept the voice, and 
prevent its exit by the mouth, the breath emitted through 
the nose will give the letter n. 

In the fifth position, namely, when we apply the middle 
or back part of the tongue to the palate, we have the con- 
sonants ft, g, sh,j 9 and ng. 

If the middle of the tongue be raised, so as to press 
closely against the roof of the mouth, and intercept the 
voice at once, we pronounce the letter k (eh). If the 
tongue be not so closely applied at first, and the sound be 
allowed to continue a little, we have the letter g (eg). 
Thus ek and eg bear the same analogy to each other, as et 
and ed of the fourth position. If the tongue be protruded 
towards the teeth, so as not to touch them, and be kept in 
a position somewhat flatter than in pronouncing the letter 



10 



INTRODUCTION. 



s, the voice and breath passing over it through a wider 
chink, we shall have the sound of esh. 

If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pronouncing 
sh 9 but a little more forcibly, and accompanying it with 
the guttural sound, we shall have the sound of the French 
j. Thus j is in this position analogous to the letters b, v, 
th, in the first, second, and third positions, and is a simple 
consonant : j in English is a double consonant, compounded 
of d and the French j, as in join. 

If we raise the middle of the tongue to the palate gently, 
so as to permit part of the voice to issue through the 
mouth, forcing the remainder back through the nose, 
keeping at the same time the tongue in the same position 
as in pronouncing eg, we shall have the articulating sound 
of ing, for which we have no simple character. 

The only remaining letter h is the note of aspiration, 
formed in various positions, according to the vowel with 
which it is combined. 

The characters of the several letters may be seen in the 
following table: 



Perfect 
Mutes. 


Sounded, or 
imperfect. 


Imperfect 
Consonants 


Perfect. 


P 


B 












M 






F 


V 






th 


th the 


T 


D 










s 


Z 








R 








L 








N 


K 


G 










Sh 


J French 








ng 



INTRODUCTION. 11 



What effect the compression of the larynx has in articu- 
lation may be seen by comparing these pairs of consonants : 



ith compression. 


Without compression 


B 


P 


G 


K 


D 


T 


Z 


S 


Th 


Th 


V 


F 


J 


Sh 



These, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from its 
partner, by a certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible 
motion or compression of or near the larynx. This com- 
pression, he remarks, the Welsh never use. For in- 
stead of 

I vow by God, that Jenkin is a wizard ; 
they say, 

I fow by Cot, that Shenkin iss a wisart. 

The consonants have been distributed into different 
classes, according to the organs chiefly employed in their 
formation. 

The Labial are eb, ep, ef, ev. 
Dental ed, et, eth, eth. 

Palatal eg, ek, el, er, ess, esh, ez, ej. 

Nasal em, en, ing. 

The association of two vowels, whether the sound of 
each be heard or not, is called a diphthong, and the con- 
currence of three is called a triphthong. 

Of diphthongs there are twenty, viz. ai, an, ea, ee> ei, 
eo, eu, ie, oa, oo, ui, ay, ey, uy, oi, oy, ou, aw, ew, ow. 
Of the diphthongs seventeen have a sound purely monoph- 
thongal ; hence they have been called improper diph- 
thongs. It would be idle to dispute the propriety of a 
term almost universally adopted ; but to call that a diph- 
thong whose sound is monophthongal is an abuse of Ian- 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

guage, and creates confusion. The only proper diphthongs 
in our language are eu, oi, ou, in which each vowel is 
distinctly heard, forming together one syllable. The 
triphthongs are three, eau, ieu, iew. Of these, the first 
eau is sometimes pronounced eu, as in beauty; sometimes 
o, as in beau : the other two have the diphthongal sound 
of eu. 



PART I. 
ETYMOLOGY. 



OF WORDS IN GENERAL, AND THE PARTS OF SPEECH. 

A word, in oral language, is either a significant simple 
sound, or a significant combination of sounds. In written 
language, it may be defined to be a simple character, or 
combination of characters, expressive of significant sound, 
simple or compound. 

A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable ; of two 
syllables, a dissyllable; a word of three syllables, a tri- 
syllable ; and a word of more than three syllables is called 
a polysyllable. The last term, however, is frequently 
applied to words exceeding two syllables. 

Words are either derivative or primitive. 

A primitive is that which is formed from no other word, 
being itself a root, whence others spring, as angel, spirit, 
school. 

A derivative is that which is derived from some other 
word, as angelic, spiritual, scholar. 

A compound is a word made up of two or more words, 
as archangel, spiritless, schoolman. 

In examining the character of words as significant of 
ideas, we find them reducible into classes, or denominations, 
according to the offices which they severally perform. 
These classes are generally called parts of speech ; and 



14 ETYMOLOGY. 

how many of these belong to language has been long a 
question among philosophers and grammarians. Some 
have reckoned two, some three, and others four; while 
the generality have affirmed, that there are not fewer than 
eight, nine, or ten.* This strange diversity of opinion 
has partly arisen from a propensity to judge of the cha- 
racter of words more from their form, which is a most 
fallacious criterion, than from their import or signification. 
One thing appears certain, how much soever the subject 
may have been obscured by scholastic refinements, that to 
assign names to objects of thought, and to express their 
properties and qualities, are the only indispensable requi- 
sites in language. If this be admitted, it follows, that the 
noun and the verb are the only parts of speech which are 
essentially necessary; the former being the name of the 
thing of which we speak, and the latter, verb (or the word, 
by way of eminence), expressing what we think of it.-f- 
All other sorts of words must be regarded as subsidiaries, 
convenient perhaps for the more easy communication of 
thought, but by no means indispensably requisite. 

Had we a distinct name for every individual object of 
sensation or thought, language would then be composed 
purely of proper names, and thus become too great a load 
for any memory to retain. Language, therefore, must be 
composed of general signs, that it may be remembered ; 

* Plato and Aristotle, when they treat of propositions, considered the 
noun and the verb as the only essential parts of speech ; these, without 
the aid of -any other word, being capable of forming a sentence. Hence 
they were called T « E/^u^orara pepy tou Xoyou, " the most animated parts of 
speech." The latter of these philosophers, in his Poetics, admits four, 
adding to the noun and the verb the article and the conjunction. The 
elder Stoics made five, dividing the noun into proper and appellative, 
f Noun, Nomen de quo loquimur. 

Verb, Verbum seu quod loquimur. — Quint, lib. i. 4. 
Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctrine when 
he says, 

" Donee verba, quibus voces sensusq; notarent, 
Nominaque invenere." — Lib. i. Sat. 3. 



ETYMOLOGY. 15 

and as all our sensations and perceptions are of single 
objects, it must also be capable of denoting individuals. 
Now, whatever mode be adopted to render general terms 
significant of individual objects, or whatever auxiliaries be 
employed for this purpose, the general term, with its indi- 
viduating word, must be regarded as a substitute for the 
proper name. Thus, man is a general term to denote the 
whole of a species ; if I say, the man, this man, that man, 
it is obvious that the words the, this, and that, termed de- 
finitives, serve, with the general term, as a substitute for 
the proper name of the individual. 

Hence it is evident, that those words which are termed 
definitives, how useful soever, cannot be regarded as indis- 
pensable. 

The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the noun; it 
cannot therefore be deemed essential. The adjective ex- 
pressing merely the property or quality in concreto, with- 
out affirmation, may be dispensed with ; the connexion of 
a substance with a quality or property being expressible 
by the noun and the verb. Thus, " a good man" is 
equivalent to cs a man of, with, or join, goodness." Ad- 
verbs, which have been termed attributives of the second 
order, are nothing but abbreviations, as, here for in this 
place, bravely for brave like. These, therefore, cannot be 
considered as essentials in language. In the same manner 
it might be shown, that all parts of speech, noun and verb 
excepted, are either substitutes or abbreviations, convenient 
indeed, but not indispensably requisite. But, as there 
will be occasion to illustrate this theory, when the generally 
received parts of speech are severally examined, it is un- 
necessary to enlarge on the subject at present. 

Though the essential parts of speech in every language 
are only two, the noun and the verb ; yet, as there is in 
all languages a number of words not strictly reducible to 
either of these primary divisions, it has been usual with 
grammarians to arrange words into a variety of different 
classes. This distribution is partly arbitrary, there being 



16 ETYMOLOGY. 

no definite or universally received principle, by which to 
determine what discriminative circumstances are sufficient 
to entitle any species of words to the distinction of a sepa- 
rate order. Hence grammarians are not agreed concerning 
the number of these subordinate classes. But, into what- 
ever number of denominations they may be distributed, it 
should be always remembered, that the only necessary 
parts of speech are noun and verb ; every other species of 
words being admitted solely for despatch or ornament. 
The parts of speech in English may be reckoned ten; 
Noun, Article, Pronoun, Adjective, Verb, Participle, 
Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction, Interjection. 



ETYMOLOGY. 1J 



CHAPTER I. 



OF THE NOUN. 



SECTION I. 



Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses 
the subject of discourse, or which is the name of the. thing 
spoken of, as, table, house, river. 

Of Nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative. 

A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, 
as, Alexander, London, Vesuvius. 

An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, 
or class of things, and is common or applicable to every 
individual of that class. 

Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) 
have also been divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. 
Of the first class, man, horse, tree, are examples. The 
names of things of our own formation are termed artificial 
substantives, as, watch, house, ship. The names of qualities 
or properties, conceived as existing by themselves, or 
separated from the substances to which they belong, are 
called abstract nouns; while Adjectives, expressing these 
qualities as conjoined with their subjects, are called con- 
cretes. Hard, for example, is termed the concrete, hard- 
ness the abstract. 

Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, 
species, and individuals. Thus man is a generic term, an 
Englishman a special term, and George an individual. 
Appellative nouns being employed to denote genera or 
species, and these orders comprising each many individuals, 
hence arises that accident of a common noun, called Num- 



18 ETYMOLOGY. 

ber, by which we signify, whether one or more individuals 
of any genus or species be intended. 

In English there are two numbers, the singular and the 
plural. The singular, expressing only one of a class or 
genus, is the noun in its simple form, as, river ; the plural, 
denoting more than one, is generally formed by adding 
the letter s to the singular, as, rivers.* To this rule, 
however, there are many exceptions. 

Nouns ending in ch, sh, ss, or x, form their plural by 
adding the syllable es to the singular number, as, church, 
churches. Dr. Whateley, (now Archbishop of Dublin,) 
in violation of this universal rule, writes premiss in the 
singular number, and premises in the plural. (See his 
Logic, pp. 25, 26.) Premise, like promise, is the proper 
term, and makes premises in the plural. Premiss and 
premises are repugnant to all analogy. — Ch hard takes 5 
for the plural termination, and not es, as, patriarch, patri- 
archs ; distich, distichs. 

Nouns ending inforfe, make their plural by changing 
f or fe into ves, as, calf, calves; knife, knives. Except 
hoof, roof, grief, dwarf, mischief, handkerchief, relief, muff, 
ruff, cuff, snuff, stuff, puff, cliff, skiff, with a few others, 
which in the formation of their plurals follow the general 
rule. 

Nouns in o impure form their plural by adding es, as, 
hero, heroes ; echo, echoes : those which end in o pure by 
adding 5, as, folio, folios. 

Some nouns have their plural in en, thus following the 
Teutonic termination, as, ox, oxen; man, men. 

Some are entirely anomalous, as, die, dice ; penny, pence; 

* The plural number, and the genitive singular, seem to have been 
originally formed by adding er to the nominative singular, as, you, 
you-er, your ; they, they-er, their ; we, we-er, our. This termination was 
afterwards changed into en, and then into es or s. Thus we have still in 
provincial usage, though now almost entirely obsolete, childer for the 
plural of child, and the double plural in child-er-en, children, with the 
double genitive in west-er-en, western. 



ETYMOLOGY. 



19 



goose % geese; sow, swine; and brother makes brethren,* 
when denoting persons of the same society or profession. 
Die, a stamp for coining, makes dies in the plural. 

Index makes in the plural indexes, when it expresses a 
table of contents, and indices, when it denotes the exponent 
of an algebraic quantity. 

Some are used alike in both numbers, as, hose,-\ deer, 
sheep, these being either singular or plural. 

Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made 
double or plural have no singular, as, bowels, lungs, scissors, 
ashes, bellows. 

Nouns ending in y impure form their plural by chang- 
ing y into ies, as, quality, qualities. 

Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c. retain 
their original plurals. 



Lat. 


Sing!. 
Arcanum 


PL 

Arcana 


Fr. 


Beau 


Beaux 


Lat. 


Erratum 


Errata 


Fr. 


Monsieur 


Messieurs, Messrs 


Heb. 


Cherub 


Cherubim 


Heb. 
Lat. 
Gr. 


Seraph 
Magus 
Phenomenon 


Seraphim 

Magi 

Phenomena 


Lat. 


Stratum 


Strata 


Gr. 


Automaton 


Automata 


Lat. 


Vortex 


Vortices 


Lat. 


Radius 


Radii 


Lat. 


Genus 


Genera 


Gr. 


Crisis 


Crises 


Gr. 
Gr. 
Lat. 


Emphasis 

Hypothesis 

Genius 


Emphases 

Hypotheses 

Genii, 



* Brethren, in Scripture, is used for brothers. 
f The obsolete plural occurs in the Bible, 
in their hosen and hats." — Dan. iii. 21. 



These men were bound 



c 2 



20 ETYMOLOGY. 

when denoting aerial spirits ; but when signifying men of 
genius, or employed to express the plural of that combina- 
tion of mental qualities which constitutes genius, it follows 
the general rule. 

A proper name has a plural number when it becomes 
the name of more individuals than one, as, the two Scipios ; 
the twelve Ccesars. It is to be observed, however, that it 
ceases then to be, strictly speaking, a proper name. 

Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote 
things measured or weighed, unless when they express 
varieties, as, sugar, sugars ; wheat, wheats ; oil, oils ; wine, 
wines. Here, not numbers of individuals, but different 
species or classes, are signified. In this sense, the nouns 
are used pi ur ally. 

2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, 
hardness, softness, prudence, envy, benevolence, have no 
plural. It is to be observed, however, that several nouns 
of this class ending in y, when they do not express the 
quality or property in the abstract, but either its varieties 
or its manifestations, are used plurally. Thus we say, 
levities, affinities, gravities, &c. There may be different 
degrees and different exhibitions of the quality, but not a 
plurality. 

Where displays of the mental quality are to be express- 
ed, it is better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, 
instead of using with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural 
insolences, the expression acts of insolence would be pre- 
ferable. 

Some of those words which have no singular termination 
are names of sciences, as, mathematics, metaphysics, politics, 
ethics, pneumatics, &c. 

Of these, the term ethics is, I believe, considered as 
either singular or plural. 

Mathematics is generally construed as plural; sometimes, 
however, we find it as singular. " It is a great pity," says 
Locke (vol. iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794), " Aristotle had not 



ETYMOLOGY. 21 

understood mathematics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made 
use of it in natural philosophy." 

"But when mathematics," says Mr. Harris, "instead of 
being applied to this excellent purpose, are used not to 
exemplify logic, but to supply its place, no wonder if logic 
pass into contempt." 

Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural 
in the same sentence. " If a child," says he, " be bird- 
witted, that is, hath not the faculty of attention, the mathe- 
matics giveth a remedy thereunto ; for in them, if the wit 
be caught away but a moment, one is new to begin." He 
likewise frequently gives to some names of sciences a sin- 
gular termination ; and Beat tie, with a few others, have, 
in some instances, followed his example. 

" Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, 
and opposed metaphysic to metaphysic." — Essay on Truth. 

" See physic beg the Stagyrite's defence, 
See metaphysic call for aid on sense/' — Pope. 

This usage, however, is not general. 

Metaphysics is used both as a singular and plural noun. 

tc Metaphysics has been defined, by a writer deeply read 
in the ancient philosophy, ' The science of the principles 
and causes of all things existing.' " — Encyc. Brit. Here 
the word is used as singular ; as likewise in the following 
example : 

" Metaphysics has been represented by painters and 
sculptors as a woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a 
sceptre in her hand, and having at her feet an hour-glass 
and a globe." 

" Metaphysics is that science, in which are understood 
the principles of other sciences." — Hutton. 

In the following examples it is construed as a plural 
noun. 

" Metaphysics tend only to benight the understanding 
in a cloud of its own making." — Knox. 



22 ETYMOLOGY. 

" Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible ob- 
jection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that 
they are not properly a science.'"-— Hume. 

The latter of these usages is the more common, and more 
agreeable to analogy. The same observation is applicable 
to the terms politics, optics, pneumatics, and other similar 
names of sciences. 

" But in order to prove more fully that politics admit 
of general truths." — Hume. 

Here the term is used as plural. 

Folk and folks are used indiscriminately; but the plural 
termination is here superfluous, the word folk implying 
plurality. 

Means is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth 
recommends the latter usage only, and admits mean as the 
singular of means. But notwithstanding the authority of 
Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for the expressions this 
mean, that mean, he. and the recommendation they receive 
from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of 
means, repudiating the singular termination, that it may 
seem, perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its 
dismission. 

It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this 
noun is not to be found in our version of the Bible ; a cir- 
cumstance which clearly shows, that the translators pre- 
ferred the plural termination. 

That the noun means has been used as a substantive 
singular by some of our best writers, it would be easy to 
prove by numberless examples. Let a few suffice. 

" By this means it became every man's interest, as well 
as his duty, to prevent all crimes." — Temple, vol. iii. 
p. 133. 

"And by this means I should not doubt." — Wilkins^s 
real Character. 

" He by that means preserves his superiority." — Addison. 

" By this means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish." 
—Pope. 



ETYMOLOGY. 23 

et By this means there was nothing left to the parliament 
of Ireland." — Blackstone, vol. i. p. 102. 

" Faith is not only a means of obeying, but a principal 
act of obedience."" — Young. 

i( Every means was lawful for the public safety." — 
Gibbon. 

That this word is also used as plural, the most inat- 
tentive English reader must have frequently observed. 

" He was careful to observe what means were employed 
by his adversaries to counteract his schemes." 

While we offer these examples to show that the term is 
used either as a singular or as a plural noun, we would 
at the same time remark, that though the expression 
" a mean" is at present generally confined to denote " a 
middle, or medium, between two extremes," we are inclined 
to concur with the learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend 
a more extended use of the noun singular. This usage 
was common in the days of Shakspeare. 

" I '11 devise a mean to draw the Moor out of the way." 
—Othello. 

" Pamela's noble heart would needs gratefully make 
known the valiant mean of her safety." — Sidney. 

" Their virtuous conversation was a mean to work the 
Heathens' conversion unto Christ." — Hooker. 

Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers distin- 
guished by their elegance and accuracy of diction, have 
adopted this usage. A means, indeed, is a form of expres- 
sion which, though not wholly unsupported by analogy, 
is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of our language, 
and seems so ill adapted to denote the operation of a single 
cause, that we should be pleased to see it dismissed from 
use. If we say, " This was one of the means which he em- 
ployed to effect his purpose," analogy and metaphysical 
propriety concur in recommending a mean s or one mean, 
as preferable to a means. News, alms, riches, pains, have 
been used as either singular or plural ; but we never say, 
" one of the news," M one of the alms," " one of the riches," 



24 ETYMOLOGY. 

"one of the pains," as we say "one of the means;" we 
may, therefore, be justified, notwithstanding the authority 
of general usage, in pronouncing " a means" a palpable 
anomaly. 

Neivs is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and 
sometimes as a plural noun. The former usage, however, 
is far the more general. 

" A general joy at this glad news appeared." — Cowley. 
"No news so bad as this at home. 11 — Shakspeare, 
Rich cud III. 

" The amazing news of Charles at once was spread." — 
Dryden. 

" The king was employed in his usual exercise of be- 
sieging castles, when the news was brought of Henry's 
arrival. 1 ' — Swift. 

" The only news you can expect from me is news from 
heaven. 11 — Gay. 

" This is all the news talked of. 11 — Pope. 
Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that 
age, seem to have uniformly used it as singular. 
A few examples occur of a plural usage. 
" When Rhea heard these news." — Raleigh, Hist. World. 
"Are there any news of his intimate friend ?" — Smollett. 
" News were brought to the queen. 11 — Hume. 
The same rule as that just now recommended in regard 
to the noun means might perhaps be useful here also, 
namely, to consider the word as singular when only one 
article of intelligence is communicated, and as plural when 
several new things are reported. 

Pains is considered as either singular or plural, some of our 
best writers using it in either way. This word is evidently 
of French extraction, being the same with peine, pains or 
trouble, and was originally used in a singular form thus, 
" Which may it please your highness to take the payne 
for to write. 11 — Wolsey's letter to Henry VIII. It seems 
probable, that this word, after it assumed a plural form, 
was more frequently used as a singular than as a plural 



ETYMOLOGY. 25 

noun. Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other 
way. A celebrated grammarian, indeed, has pronounced 
this noun to be in all cases plural ; but this assertion 
might be proved erroneous by numberless examples. # 

" The pains they had taken was very great.*" — Clarendon. 

" Great pains has been taken." — Pope. 

" No pains is taken." — Pope. 

In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular 
usage, it may be observed, that the word much, a term of 
quantity, not of number, is frequently joined with it, as, 

" I found much art and pains employed." — Middleton. 

" He will assemble materials with much pains." — 
Bolingbroke on History. 

The word much is never joined to a plural noun ; much 
labours, much papers, would be insufferable.f 

Riches is generally now considered as a plural noun ; 
though it was formerly used either as singular or plural. 
This substantive seems to have been nothing but the French 
word richesse ; and therefore no more a plural than gentle- 
nesse, distresse, and many others of the same kind. In this 
form we find it in Chaucer : 

" But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse, 
As is descended out of old richesse. 
And he that ones to love doeth his homage, 
Full often times dere bought is the richesse." 

Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses 
it as a plural word. 

" Thou has dronke so much hony of swete temporal 
richesses, and delices, and honours of this world." 

It seems evident, then, that this word was originally 
construed as a substantive singular, and even admitted a 
plural form. The orthography varying, and the noun 

* Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other ; but does 
not affirm it to be a plural noun. 

f Much is sometimes joined with collective nouns ; but these denote 
number in the aggregate ; thus, much company. 



26 ETYMOLOGY. 

singular assuming a plural termination, it came in time to 
be considered by some as a noun plural. 

In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes 
as a singular, but generally as a plural noun. 

" In one hour is so great riches come to nought.'" — 
Bible. 

" Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away." — Ibid. 

Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural 
construction ; there are a few authorities however on the 
other side, as, 

" Was ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities ?" 
— Cowley. 

" The envy and jealousy which great riches is always 
attended with." — Moyle. 

Alms was also originally a noun singular, being a con- 
traction of the old Norman French almesse, the plural of 
which was almesses. 

" This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things." 
— Chaucer. 

" These ben generally the almesses and workes of 
charity." — Ibid. 

Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in 
truth, at first a noun singular, and afterwards, by con- 
traction, receiving a plural form, it came to be considered 
by some as a noun plural. Johnson would have had equal, 
nay, perhaps, better authority for saying that this word 
has no plural. Our translators of the Bible seem to have 
considered it as singular. " To ask an alms," " to give 
much alms," and other similar phraseologies, occur in 
Scripture. Nay, Johnson himself has cited two authorities, 
in which the indefinite article is prefixed to it. 

" My arm'd knees, 

Which bow'd but in my stirrup, bend like his 
That hath received an alms." — Shakspeare. 

" The poor beggar hath a just demand of an alms from 
the rich man." — Sivift. 



ETYMOLOGY. 27 

Lowth objected to the phraseology a means, for this 
reason, that means, being a plural noun, cannot admit the 
indefinite article, or name of unity. The objection would 
be conclusive, if the expressions this means, that means, 
did not oppose the learned author's opinion, that means is 
a noun plural. To the substantive alms, as represented 
by Johnson to have no singular, the objection is applicable. 

Thanks is considered to be a plural noun, though de- 
noting only one expression of gratitude. It occurs in 
Scripture as a substantive singular. " What thank have 
ye?" 

It has been observed, that many of those words which 
have no singular denote things consisting of two parts, and 
therefore have a plural termination. Hence the word pair 
is used with many of them, as, " a pair of bellows, a pair 
of scissors, a pair of colours, a pair of drawers.'''' 



SECTION II. 

Of Genders. 



We not only observe a plurality of substances, or of 
things of the same sort, whence arises the distinction of 
number ; but we distinguish also another character of some 
substances, which we call sex. Every substance is either 
male or female, or neither the one nor the other. In Eng- 
lish, all male animals are considered as masculine; all 
female animals as feminine ; and all things inanimate, or 
destitute of sex, are termed neuter, as belonging neither to 
the male nor the female sex. In this distribution we follow 
the order of nature ; and our language is, in this respect, 
both simple and animated. 



28 



ETYMOLOGY. 



The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed by 
different words, as, 



Masc. 


Fern. 


Boy 


Girl 


Buck 


Doe 


Bull 


Cow 


Bullock 


Heifer 


Boar 


Sow 


Drake 


Duck 


Friar 


Nun 


Gaffer 


Gammer 


Gander 


Goose 


Gelding ~| 
Horse J 


Mare 


Milter 


Spawner 


Nephew 


Niece 


Ram 


Ewe 


Sloven 


Slut 


Stag 


Hind 


Widower 


Widow 


Wizard 


Witch. 


Sometimes the female 


is distinguished by t] 


tion ess or ix. 


. 


Masc. 


Fern. 


Abbot 


Abbess 


Actor 


Actress 


Adulterer 


Adulteress 


Ambassador 


Ambassadress 


Arbiter 


Arbitress 


Author 


Authoress 


Baron 


Baroness 


Chanter 


Chantress 


Count 


Countess 


Deacon 


Deaconess 


Duke 


Duchess 



ETYMOLOGY. 


Masc. 


Fern. 


Elector 


Electress 


Emperor 


Empress 


Governor 


Governess 


Heir 


Heiress 


Hunter 


Huntress 


Jew 


Jewess 


Lion 


Lioness 


Marquis 


Marchioness 


Master 


Mistress 


Patron 


Patroness 


Prince 


Princess 


Peer 


Peeress . 


Prior 


Prioress 


Poet 


Poetess 


Prophet 


Prophetess 


Shepherd 


Shepherdess 


Sorcerer 


Sorceress 


Traitor 


Traitress 


Tutor 


Tutress 


Tiger 


Tigress 


Viscount 


Viscountess. 


are a few whose feminine ends in ix, vi: 


Masc. 


Fern. 


Administrator 


Administratrix 


Executor 


Executrix 


Testator 


Testatrix 


Director 


Directrix. 



29 



Where there is but one word to express both sexes, we 
add another word to distinguish the sex ; as, he-goat, 
she-goat; man-servant, maid-servant ; cock-sparrow, hen- 
sparrow. 

It has been already observed, that all things destitute of 
sex are in English considered as of the neuter gender ; 
and, when we speak with logical accuracy, we follow this 



30 ETYMOLOGY. 

rule. Sometimes, however, by a figure in rhetoric called 
personification, we assign sex to things inanimate. Thus, 
instead of " virtue is its own reward," we sometimes say, 
"virtue is her own reward; 11 instead of " it (the sun) 
rises," we say, " he rises ;" instead of "it (death) advances 
with hasty steps," we say, " he advances." 

This figurative mode of expression, by which we give 
life and sex to things inanimate, and embody abstract 
qualities, forms a singular and striking beauty in our lan- 
guage, rendering it in this respect superior to the languages 
of Greece and Rome, neither of which admitted this ani- 
mated phraseology.* 

When we say, 

" The sun his orient beams had shed," 
the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than 

" The sun its orient beams had shed." 

In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been sup- 
posed that we have been guided by certain characters or 
qualities in the inanimate objects, as bearing some resem- 
blance to the distinctive or characteristic qualities of male 
and female animals. Thus, it has been said, that those 
inanimate substances, or abstract qualities, which are cha- 
racterized by the attributes of giving or imparting, or 
which convey an idea of great strength, firmness, or energy, 
are masculine ; and that those, on the contrary, which are 
distinguished by the properties of receiving, containing, 
and producing, or which convey an idea of weakness or 
timidity, having more of a passive than active nature, are 
feminine. Hence it has been observed, that the sun, death, 
time, the names also of great rivers and mountains, are 
considered as masculine ; and that the moon, a ship, the sea, 
virtue, in all its species, are considered as feminine. Of 
these and such speculations it may be truly said, as the 

* The gender of mors, virtus, sol, 0«v«to?, *psm, faios, was unalterably- 
fixed. 



ETYMOLOGY. 31 

learned author of them remarks himself, that they are at 
best but ingenious conjectures. They certainly will not 
bear to be rigorously examined; for there are not any two 
languages which harmonize in this respect, assigning the 
same sex to the same inanimate objects, nor any one lan- 
guage in which this theory is supported by fact. # Hence 
it is evident, that neither reason nor nature has any share 
in the regulation of this matter ; and that, in assigning sex 
to inanimate things, the determination is purely fanciful. 
In Greek, death is masculine; in Latin, feminine. In 
those languages the sun is masculine ; in the Gothic, Ger- 
man, Anglo-Saxon, and some other northern languages, it 
is feminine; in Russian it is neuter. In several of the 
languages of Asia, the sun is feminine. According to our 
northern mythology, the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The 
Romans considered the winds as masculine ; the Hebrews, 
says Caramuel, represented them as nymphs. In the He- 
brew language, however, they were of the masculine gender, 
as were also the sun and death. In short, we know not 
any two languages which accord in this respect, or any one 
language in which sex is assigned to things inanimate ac- 
cording to any consistent or determinate rule. 

In speaking of animals whose sex is not known to us, 
or not regarded, we assign to them gender either masculine 
or feminine, according, as it would appear, to the charac- 
teristic properties of the animal itself. In speaking, for 
example, of the horse, a creature distinguished by useful- 
ness and a certain generosity of nature, unless we be ac- 
quainted with the sex and wish to discriminate, we always 
speak of this quadruped as of the male sex ; thus, 

" While winter's shivering snow affects the horse 
With frost, and makes him an uneasy course." — Creech. 

In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, we 
assign to it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender ; thus, 

* It seems, however, to be more applicable to the English language 
than to any other with which I am acquainted. 



6% ETYMOLOGY. 

" the hare is so timorous a creature, that she continually 
listens after every noise, and will run a long way on the 
least suspicion of danger ; so that she always eats in terror." 
The elephant is generally considered as of the masculine 
gender, an animal distinguished not only by great strength 
and superiority of size, but also by sagacity, docility, and 
fortitude. 

" The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy ; 
His legs are for necessity, not flexure." — Shakspeare. 

To a cat we almost always assign the female sex ; to a 
dog, on the contrary, or one of the canine species, we attri- 
bute the masculine gender. 

" A cat, as she beholds the light, draws the ball of her 
eye small and long." — Peacham on Drawing. 

" The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various in 
his species." 

It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, this 
ascription of either male or female sex to animals, when 
we speak of them in the species, or are not acquainted with 
the sex of the individual ; but these now adduced will, I 
presume, be sufficient. 

By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or 
whether it be merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, it 
would be of no utility at present to inquire. It may be 
necessary, however, to remark that, when speaking of ani- 
mals, particularly those of inferior size, we frequently con- 
sider them as devoid of sex. " It is a bold and daring 
creature," says a certain writer, speaking of a cat, " and 
also cruel to its enemy ; and never gives over, till it has 
destroyed it, if possible. It is also watchful, dexterous, 
swift, and pliable." 

Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the read- 
er's attention to an idiom which seems to have escaped 
the notice of our grammarians. It frequently happens, as 
I have already observed, that our language furnishes two 
distinct terms for the male and the female, as, shepherd, 
shepherdess. It is to be observed, however, that the mas- 



ETYMOLOGY. 33 

culine term has a general meaning, expressing both male 
and female, and is always employed, when the office, occu- 
pation, profession, &c. and not the sex of the individual is 
chiefly to be expressed ; and that the feminine term is used 
in those cases only, when discrimination of sex is indispen- 
sably necessary. This may be illustrated by the following 
examples. If I say, " The poets of this age are distin- 
guished more by correctness of taste, than sublimity of 
conception,'"' I clearly include in the term poet, both male 
and female writers of poetry. If I say, " She is the best 
poetess in this country," I assign her the superiority over 
those only of her own sex. If I say, " She is the best poet 
in this country," I pronounce her superior to all other 
writers of poetry, both male and female. " Spinning," 
says Lord Kames, in his Sketches, " is a female occupa- 
tion, and must have had a female inventor." If he had 
said " a female inventress," the expression would have been 
pleonastic. If he had said " must have had an inventress," 
he would not have sufficiently contrasted the male and 
the female ; he would have merely predicated the necessity 
of an inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the term 
inventor as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting it to 
the female by the appropriate term. # When distinction 
of sex is necessary for the sake of perspicuity, or where the 

* These observations will sufficiently explain the reason why we can- 
not concur with Dr. Johnson in thinking that there is " an impropriety 
in the termination," when we say of a woman, " She is a philosopher." 
The female termination in such examples is not wanted ; it would be 
pleonastic and improper. The meaning is, " She is a person given to the 
study of nature." If we had been speaking of a lady devoted to philo- 
sophy, and had occasion afterwards to mention her by an appellative, we 
should feel the want of the appropriate termination ; and instead of say- 
ing " the philosopher," we should wish, for the sake of discrimination, 
to be able to say, " the philosophress," or to employ some equally dis- 
tinctive term. In the example adduced by the learned lexicographer, the 
female termination is superfluous ; and would intimate a distinction of 
philosophic character, instead of a distinction of sex 7 the latter being 
denoted by the female pronoun. 

D 



3% ETYMOLOGY. 

sex, rather than the general idea implied by the term, is 
the primary object, the feminine noun must be employed 
to express the female ; thus, " I hear that some authoresses 
are engaged in this work." — Political Register. Here 
the feminine term is indispensable.* This subject will be 
resumed in " the Critical Remarks and Illustrations. ,, 



SECTION III. 



Of Cases. 

The third accident of a noun is case (casus, or fall), so 
called, because ancient grammarians, "it is said, 11 repre- 
sented the cases as declining or falling from the nominative, 
which was represented by a perpendicular, and thence 
called Casus rectus, or upright case, while the others were 
named Casus obliqui, or oblique cases. The cases, in the 

* We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in Greek and 
Latin. ® c 6s and Bex, deus and dea, are contradistinguished as in English, 
god and goddess ; the former of each pair strictly denoting the male, and 
the latter the female. But the former, we find, has a generical meaning, 
expressing " a deity," whether male or female ; and is frequently used 
when the female is designed, if divinity in the abstract be the primary 
idea, without regard to the sex, thus, 

" rov 5* VepgtfaQ 'AQgobirti, 

'FiTec, ftoiX' ufi faos." — Horn. II. 3. 380. 

Here the term Oeos is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, and not 
the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the poet's attention. © e of 
is, therefore, to be considered as either masculine or feminine. 

"'AAPia ft a. Atos y uXxi/Aot, fobs." — Soph. Aj. 401. 

" M^rs ns ouv dwhua fabs" — Horn. II. ©. 7. 

" Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammam inter et hostes 
Expedior."— Virg. JEn. 2. 632. 
Here, also, deo is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following passage, 
" deum esse indignam credidi." — Plant. Pan. 2. 1. 10. 



ETYMOLOGY. 35 

languages of Greece and Rome, were formed by varying 
the termination ; and were intended to express a few of the 
most obvious and common relations. 

In English there are only three cases, nominative, geni- 
tive, and objective, or accusative case. In substantives 
the nominative case and the objective have, like neuter 
nouns in Greek and Latin, the same form, being distin- 
guishable from each other by nothing but their place ; 
thus, 

Norn. Obj. 

Achilles slew Hector. 
Hector slew Achilles, 

where the meaning is reversed by the interchange of the 
nouns, the nominative or agent being known by its being 
placed before the verb ; and the subject of the action by 
its following it. Pronouns have three cases, that is, two 
inflexions from the nominative, as, 1, mine, me ; thou, thine, 
thee. 

The genitive in English, by some called the possessive 
case, is formed by adding to the nominative the letter s, 
with an apostrophe before it, as, king, king's. It expresses 
a variety of relations, and was hence called by the Greeks 
the general case.* The relation which it most commonly 
denotes is that of property or possession, as, the king's 
crown; and is, in general, the same with that which is 
denoted by the word of, as, the crown of the king, the rage 
of the tyrant, the death of the prince, equivalent to the 
king^s crown, the tyrant's rage, the princess death. 

The nature of the relation which the genitive expresses 
must, in some instances, be collected from the scope of the 
context ; for, in English, as in most other languages, this 
case frequently involves an ambiguity. When I say, 
| neither life nor death shall separate us from the love of 

* nrwa-i; ysvexjj : general case. It has been supposed by some that 
the Latins, mistaking the import of the Greek term, called this the geni- 
tive case. See Encyc. Brit. Art. Grammar. 

D 2 



36 ETYMOLOGY. 

God," it may mean, either from the love which we owe to 
God, or the love which he bears to us ; for " God's love" 
may denote either the relation which the affection bears 
to its subject, or that which it bears to its object. If the 
latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity may be 
prevented by saying, " love to God." 

An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing either 
the relation of the effect to its cause, or that of the accident 
to its subject. " A little after the reformation of Luther," 
says Swift. This may import either the change produced 
by Luther, or a change produced in him. The latter in- 
deed is properly the meaning, though not that which was 
intended by the author. He should have said, " the re- 
formation by Luther." It is clear, therefore, that the 
relation expressed by the genitive is not uniformly the 
same, that the phrase may be interpreted either in an 
active or passive sense,* and that the real import must be 
collected, not from the expression, but the context. 

Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to ex- 
press all relations commencing from itself, and offers the 
analysis of this case in all modern languages as a proof. 
That it expresses more than this, both in English and 
Latin, and that it denotes relations, not only commencing 
from itself, but likewise directed to itself, the examples 
already quoted are sufficient to prove. Nay, were it neces- 
sary, it would be easy to demonstrate, that this ambiguity 
in the use of the genitive is not confined to these two lan- 
guages, but is found in Greek, Hebrew, Italian, and, I 
believe, in all the modern languages of Europe. 

Concerning the origin of the English genitive, gramma- 
rians and critics are not agreed. That the cases, or nominal 

* Amor Dei denotes either amor quo Deus amat, or quo Deus amatur. 
Reformatio Lutheri, either qua reformavit, or qua reformatus est. Injuria 
patris, desiderium amici, with many other examples which might be 
produced, have either an active or passive sense. ^ aya?^ tou 0* 
miT JllH^j ramore de Dio, l'amour de Dieu, severally involve 
the same ambiguity with " the love of God." 



ETYMOLOGY. 37 

inflexions, in all languages were originally formed by an- 
nexing to the noun in its simple form a word significant of 
the relation intended, is a doctrine which, I conceive, is 
not only approved by reason, but also attested by fact. 
That any people, indeed, in framing their language, should 
affix to their nouns insignificant terminations, for the pur- 
pose of expressing any relation, is a theory extremely im- 
probable. Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek 
and Latin languages, I am persuaded that, were we suffi- 
ciently acquainted with their original structure, we should 
find that all these terminations were at first words signi- 
ficant, subjoined to the radix, and afterwards abbreviated. 
This opinion is corroborated by the structure of the He- 
brew, and some other oriental languages, whose affixes and 
prefixes, in the formation of their cases and conjugation of 
their verbs, we can still ascertain. 

Now, the English genitive being formed by annexing to 
the nominative the letter s, with an apostrophe, several 
critics, among whom is Mr. Addison, deliver it as their 
opinion, that this termination is a contraction for the pos- 
sessive pronoun his. This opinion appears to be counte- 
nanced by the examples which occur in the Bible, and 
Book of Common Prayer, in which, instead of the English 
genitive, we find the nominative with the possessive pro- 
noun masculine of the third person ; thus, " for Christ his 
sake," " Asa his heart was perfect. 1 ' Dr. Lowth considers 
these expressions as errors either of the printers or the 
authors. That they are not typographical mistakes I am 
fully persuaded. They occur in the books now mentioned, 
and also in the works of Bacon, Donne, and many other 
writers, much too frequently to admit this supposition. If 
errors, therefore, they are errors not of the printers, but of 
the authors themselves. 

To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, and to 
show that Addison's opinion is erroneous, Dr. Lowth ob- 
serves that, though we can resolve " the king's crown" into 
" the king his crown," we cannot resolve " the queen's 



38 ETYMOLOGY. 

crown" into " the queen her crown," or " the children's 
bread" into " the children their bread." This fact, he ob- 
serves, ought to have demonstrated to Mr. Addison the 
incorrectness of his opinion. Lowth, therefore, refers the 
English to the Saxon genitive for its real origin, and ob- 
serves, that its derivation from that genitive decides the 
question.* Hickes, in his Thesaurus, had previously de- 
livered the same opinion. Speaking of the Anglo-Saxon 
genitive in es, he observes, " Inde in nostratium sermone 
nominum substantivorum genitivus singularis, et nomina- 
tivus pluralis, exeunt in es, vel s." From the introduction 
of the Saxons into this island, to the Norman conquest, 
the Saxon genitive was in universal use. From the latter 
period to the time of Henry II. (1170), though the Eng- 
lish language underwent some alterations, we still find the 
Saxon genitive. Thus in a poem, entitled " The Life of 
St. Margaret," in the Normanno-Saxon dialect, we find the 
following among other examples, " christes angles," and 
the pronoun hyy (his) spelled is ; thus, " Theodosius was 
is name." — See Hickes, Thes. vol. i. p. 226. 

Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward the 
Confessor (1050), he does not find the Saxon genitive; 
and as a proof that the pronoun his was used instead of the 
Saxon termination, he quotes a passage from a charter of 
Edward the Confessor, where the words " bissop his land" 
occur, which he conceives to be equivalent to " bishop's 
land." Now, had he read but a small part of that charter, 
he would have found the Saxon genitive ; and what he 
imagines to be equivalent to the English genitive is neither 
that case, nor synonymous with it. The passage runs 
thus : u And ich ke J»e eu pat Alfred havet iseld Gise 

* Of the six declensions, to one or other of which the learned Dr. 
Hickes conceives the inflexion of almost all the Saxon nouns may be 
reduced, three form their genitive in es, as, word, wordes; smith, smithes. 
In the Mcesogothic, a kindred language, the genitive ends in s, some 
nouns having is, some ns, and others as, as, fan,fanins ; faakagagja, 
faukagngjis. 



ETYMOLOGY. 39 

bissop his land at Llyton ;"" the meaning of which is, 
" Know that Alfred hath sold to Bishop Gise his land at 
Lutton." In the time of Richard II. (1385) we find Tre- 
visa and Chaucer using the Saxon genitive. Thus, in 
Trevisa's translation of the Athanasian creed, we find 
among other examples, " Godes sight." 

In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, we find is instead of es, thus, faderis 
hands. 

In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the works 
of Sir T. More, both the Saxon and the English genitive ; 
and in a letter, written in 1559, by Maitland of Lething- 
ton, the English genitive frequently occurs. Had this 
genitive, then, been an abbreviation for the noun and the 
pronoun his, the use of the words separately would have 
preceded their abbreviated form in composition. This, 
however, was not the case. 

To form the genitive plural, we annex the apostrophe 
without the letter 5, as eagles' wings, that is, the wings of 
eagles. The genitive singular of nouns terminating in s, 
is formed in the same manner, as, righteousness'' sake, or, 
the sake of righteousness. 

I finish this article with observing, that there are in 
English a few diminutive nouns, so called from their ex- 
pressing a small one of the kind. Some of these end in 
kin, from a Dutch and Teutonic word signifying a child, 
as, manikin, a little man, lambkin, pipkin, thomkin. 
Proper names ending in kin belonged originally to this 
class of diminutives, as, Wilkin, Willielmulus ; Halkin, 
Hawkin, Henriculus; Tomkin, Thorn ulus ; Simkin, Pe- 
terkin, &c. 

Some diminutives end in ock, as, hill, hillock; bull, 
bullock; some in el, as, pike, pickrel ; cock, cockrel; sack, 
satchel; some in ing, as, goose, gosling. These seem to 
be the only legitimate ones, as properly belonging to our 
language. The rest are derived from Latin, French, 
Italian, and have various terminations. 



40 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER II. 



OF THE ARTICLE. 



Language is chiefly composed of general terms, most 
substantives being the names of genera or species. When we 
find a number of substances resembling one another in their 
principal and most obvious qualities, we refer them to one 
species, to which we assign a name common to every in- 
dividual of that species. In like manner, when we find 
several of these species resembling one another in their 
chief properties, we refer them to a higher order, to which 
also we assign a common and more general name than that 
which was affixed to the inferior class. Thus we assign 
the general name mart to the human species, as possessing 
a common form, and distinguished by the common attri- 
butes of life, reason, and speech. If we consider man as 
possessed of life only, we perceive a resemblance in this 
respect between him and other beings. To this higher 
class or genus, the characteristic attribute of which is 
vitality, we affix the more generic name of animal.* Hence, 
when we use an appellative or common noun, it denotes the 
genus or class collectively, of which it is the name, as, 

" The proper study of mankind is man,' 1 i. e. not one 
man, not many men, but all men. 

Not only, however, has this rule its limitations, though 
these seem governed by no fixed principle, but we fre- 
quently find the articles admitted when the whole genus 
or species is evidently implied. Thus we may say, 

* It must be obvious, that the terms general and universal belong not 
to real existences, but are merely denominations, the result of intellect, 
generalising a number of individuals under one head. 



ETYMOLOGY. 41 

" Metal is specifically heavier than water ;" i. e. not this 
or that metal, but all metals. But we cannot say, " Vege- 
table is specifically lighter than water ;" or, " Mineral is 
specifically heavier than water.'" Again ; we say, " Man 
is born unto trouble ;"" but we cannot say, " Tiger is fero- 
cious," or " Fox is cunning j" but, " The tiger, or a tiger, 
is ferocious;" "The fox, or a fox, is cunning ;" the ex- 
pressions being applicable to the whole species. It would 
appear, indeed, that when proper names assume the office 
of appellatives, the reverse of the rule takes place. Thus 
we say, " A Douglas braves the pointed steel ;" the mean- 
ing being, "every Douglas.'" Suppress the indefinite 
article, and the general proposition becomes individual. 

But, though our words are general, all our perceptions 
are individual, having single existences for their objects. 
It is often necessary, however, to express two, three, or 
more of these individual existences ; and hence arises the 
use of that species of words which have been called nume- 
rals, that is, words denoting number. To signify unity or 
one of a class, our forefathers employed ae or ane, as, ae 
man, ane ox. When unity, or the number one, as opposed 
to two or more, was to be expressed, the emphasis would 
naturally be laid on the word significant of unity ; and 
when unity was not so much the object as the species or 
kind, the term expressive of unity would naturally be un- 
emphatical ; and hence ae, by celerity of pronunciation, 
would become a, and ane be shortened into an. These 
words a and an are now termed indefinite articles ; it is 
clear, however, that they are truly numerals, belonging to 
the same class with two, three, four, &c. ; or, perhaps more 
properly, these numerals may be considered as abbreviations 
for the repeated expression of the term one. By whatever 
name these terms a, an, may be designed, it seems evident 
that they were originally synonymous with the name of 
unity, or rather themselves names of unity, emphasis only 
distinguishing whether unity or the species were chiefly 
intended. Hence a and an cannot be joined with a plural 
noun. 



42 ETYMOLOGY. 

Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in every 
example where a or an occurs, the term one may be sub- 
stituted in its stead, without in the least degree injuring 
the sense. As far as the primary idea denoted by these 
words is concerned, this opinion is doubtless incontrovert- 
ible, for they each express unity ; but with regard to the 
secondary or implied ideas which these terms convey, the 
difference is obvious. An example will illustrate this: If 
I say, " Will one man be able to carry this burden so far ?" 
I evidently oppose one to more ; and the answer might be, 
" No ; but two men will." Let us substitute the term a, 
and say, " Will a man be able to carry this burden ?" Is 
the idea nowise changed by this alteration ? I apprehend 
it is ; for the answer might naturally be, " No ; but a 
horse will." I have here substituted «, for one ; the con- 
verse will equally show that the terms are by no means 
mutually convertible, or strictly synonymous. If, instead 
of saying, " A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse," I 
should say, " One horse, one horse, one kingdom for one 
horse," the sentiment, I conceive, would not be strictly the 
same. In both expressions the species is named, and in 
both one of that species is demanded ; but with this differ- 
ence, that in the former the name of the species is the em- 
phatic word, and it opposes that species to every other ; 
in the latter, unity of object seems the leading idea, " one 
kingdom for one horse." In this respect, our language 
appears to me to have a decided superiority over those 
languages where one word performs the office of what we 
term an article, and at the same time denotes the idea of 
unity. Donnez-moi un livre means either "give me one 
book," i. e. not two or more books ; or " give me a book," 
that is, " a book, not something else ; a book, not a pen," 
for example. 

I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis may 
serve to discriminate the sentiments, and prevent ambi- 
guity. But emphasis is addressed to the ear only, not to 
the eye ; it can, therefore, be of no service in written Ian- 



ETYMOLOGY. 43 

guage. It is true also, that by attending to the context 
error may often be avoided ; but let it be remembered, as 
Quintilian observes,* that language should be, not such as 
the reader may understand if he will take the trouble to 
examine it carefully, but such as he cannot even without 
effort fail to comprehend. When it is asserted, therefore, 
that one may in every case be substituted for a, without 
in the least degree injuring the expression, the position 
appears to me erroneous and false. Whatever creates am- 
biguity, whether with respect to the primary or secondary 
ideas annexed to words, in some degree, without question, 
violates the sense. Be it observed also, that, though a, 
an, ae, ane, one, may have been all etymologically the same, 
it does not follow, nor is it practically true, as has been 
now shown, that they are all precisely equivalent words. 
In Scotland, the distinction between a and ae is well known. 
" Give me a book,"" means any book, in contradistinction 
to any other object, as " a chair," " a pen," " a knife ;" 
" give me ae book," is in contradistinction to one or more. 
Such also is the difference between a and one. 

* Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curan- 
dum. — Inst. lib. viii. cap. 4. 

I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority in this 
respect over the Greek itself. Eysvsro avQpw7ro; a7r£r«V EV0 '* 7ra P' x T0U ° £0 ° 
may signify either "man in the species, or an individual, was sent from 
God." The author of the article Grammar, in the Encyc. Brit, observes, 
" that the word avQpwiros is here restricted to an individual by its concord 
with the verb and the participle." If he mean by this that the term must 
be significant of only one individual (and I can annex no other interpre- 
tation to his words), because a singular verb and participle singular are 
joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless examples might be pro- 
duced to evince the contrary. Job, v. 7. avQp<D7ro; yevvurou wir<a, " man 
(mankind) is born unto trouble :'' where the subject is joined to a verb 
singular. Psal. xlix. 12. ocv^wtto,- « n/mri wv ov trwrixe, "man being in 
honour abideth not." Here also man for mankind is joined with a par- 
ticiple and verb singular. And here it may be pertinently asked, would 
not the term one for a in the first example somewhat alter the meaning, 
and convey an idea different from that intended by the evangelist? 



44 ETYMOLOGY. 

It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word a, termed 
the indefinite article, was originally identical with the name of 
unity, expressing either one of any species, as opposed to 
more of that species, or one of this kind, as opposed to one 
of that. Whether the distinction of its noting one or unity, 
with less emphasis than the appropriate name of unity, 
should entitle it to be referred to a different class of words 
from the numeral one, and called an article, it is unimport- 
ant to inquire. To me, however, I must acknowledge the 
distinctive name of article assigned to this word appears 
to be useless. Were emphasis to be admitted as the 
principle of classification (and I see no other distinction 
between a and one), the parts of speech might be multi- 
plied beyond number. 

Besides the words a and an, termed indefinite articles, 
as not defining which of the species is signified, we have 
also another word, the, named the definite article, because 
it is said to point out the individual object. This word, 
I doubt not, proceeded from the word this or that, much 
in the same manner as a and an from ae and ane. To 
what class of words this and that should be referred has 
been a subject of controversy.* That they are not pro- 
nouns, as some have asserted, seems abundantly evident ; 
for they never represent a noun. By some they have been 
called definitives; and, though this designation be not 
strictly consonant with their import, it is perhaps the least 
exceptionable. When opposed to each other, they appear 
to be reducible to that species of words termed adjectives 

* They are the Saxon words this or thes, " hie, haec, hoc," that or 
that, " ille, ilia, illud," which were frequently used by the Saxons for 
what we term the definite article, as, send us on thas swyn, " send us into 
the swine." Mark, v. 21. tha eodon tha unclanan gastas on tha swyn, 
" then the unclean spirits entered into the swine." 

The Saxon definitives are se, seo, that, for the three genders severally; 
and tha in the plural, expressing the or those, as, that gods sad, the good 
seed. That is also joined to masculine and feminine nouns, as, that wif, 
the woman ; thatfolc, the people. Tha (pronounced they) still obtains 
in Scotland, as, " tha? men" for " these men." 



ETYMOLOGY. 45 

of order ; the only difference between them and ordinal 
numerals being this, that the former express the arrange- 
ment in relation to two objects, the latter in relation to a 
series. This means " the nearer ," " the latter," or " the 
second ;" that, " the more remote,'" " the former," or " the 
first." Their office, in general, seems to be emphatically 
to individuate some particular object whose character was 
either previously known, or is then described ; hence they 
have also been named demonstratives. Under which of the 
generally received parts of speech they should be compre- 
hended it may be difficult to determine. As, like simple 
attributives, they accord with nouns, frequently denoting 
the accident of place, they may be grammatically referred 
to the class of adjectives. Their import will appear from 
a few examples. 

" That kind being, who is a father to the fatherless, will 
recompense thee for this." 

Here a species is referred to, distinguished by benevo- 
lence. Of this species one individual is emphatically par- 
ticularized : " That kind being." Who ? his distinctive 
character follows, " is a father to the fatherless." The 
concluding word, this, points to something previously 
described. 



" ' Twas idly done 

To tell him of another world ; for wits 
Knew better; and the only good on earth 
Was pleasure ; not to follow that was sin.' 



Here the word that refers with emphasis to a thing pre- 
viously specified, namely, pleasure. 

" It is no uncommon thing to find a man who laughs at 
every thing sacred, yet is a slave to superstitious fears. I 
would not be that man, were a crown to tempt me." Here 
one indefinitely of a species is mentioned, a man. The 
subject is afterwards limited by description to one of a 
certain character, " who laughs at things sacred, and is a 
slave to superstitious fears." The word that selects and 



46 ETYMOLOGY. 

demonstrates the person thus described. The word the 
has nearly the same import ; but is less emphatical. It 
seems to bear the same analogy to that which a does to one. 
Hence in many cases they may be used indifferently. 

" Happy the man whose cautious feet shun the broad 
way that sinners go." 

Here, cc happy that man" would express the same idea. 
The Latins accordingly employed the demonstrative word 
ille ; beatus Hie, " happy the man." 

What then is the difference between the and that ? To 
ascertain this, let us inquire, in what cases the is employed, 
and whether that can be substituted in its stead. 

The word the is employed, 

1st, When we express an object of eminence or notoriety, 
or the only one of a kind, in which we are interested, as, 
" the king," when we mean " the king of England." " He 
was concerned in bringing about the revolution," when we 
mean the revolution in this country. " Virgil copied the 
Grecian bard," or " Homer." "lam going to the city," 
when I mean " London." In none of these cases can we 
substitute that for the, without laying a particular empha- 
sis on the subject, and implying that its character is there 
described in contradistinction to some other of the same 
species. Thus, (t he was concerned in that revolution, 
which was accomplished by the English barons." "He 
copied that Grecian bard, who disputes the claim of anti- 
quity with Homer." 

2dly, We employ it in expressing objects of repeated 
perception, or subjects of previous conversation. I bor- 
row an example from Harris. If I see, for the first time, 
a man with a long beard, I say, " there goes a man with a 
long beard." If I see him again, I say, " there goes the 
man with the long beard." Were the word that substi- 
tuted for the, the same observation would be applicable as 
in the preceding examples. 

3dly, Mr. Harris has said, that the article a is used to 
express objects of primary perception, and the employed 



ETYMOLOGY. 47 

to denote those only of secondary perception. This opinion 
is controverted by the author of the article Grammar in 
the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. 3d, who gives the fol- 
lowing example to disprove its truth. " I am in company, 
and finding the room warm, I say to the servant, Request 
the gentleman in the window seat (to whom I am an entire 
stranger) to draw down the sash." The example is apposite, 
and is sufficient to overturn the hypothesis of Mr. Harris. 
There can be no question but the is frequently employed 
to denote objects of primary perception ; and merely par- 
ticularize, by some discriminating circumstance, an in- 
dividual whose character, person, or distinctive qualities, 
were previously unknown. In the example now quoted, 
that may be substituted for the, if we say, " who is in the 
window seat." 

4thly, The definite article is used to distinguish the ex- 
plicative from the determinative sense. In the former 
case it is rarely employed ; in the latter it should never 
be omitted, unless when something still more definite sup- 
plies its place. " Man, who is born of a woman, is of 
few days and full of trouble. 1 ' Here the relative clause is 
explicative, and not restrictive ; all men being " born of 
a woman ;" the definite article therefore is not employed. 
" The man" would imply that all men are not thus born ; 
and would confine the predicating clause to those who 
are. In the latter sense, that may, without any alteration 
in the phraseology, be substituted for the article ; for the 
man, and that man, are in this instance equivalent. 

5thly, The definite article is often used to denote the 
measure of excess. " The more you study, the more 
learned you will become ;" that is, " by how much the 
more you study, by so much the more learned you will 
become." " The wiser, the better ;" " that (by that) 
wiser, that (by that) better." There also that and the 
may be considered as equivalent ; and the Latins accord- 
ingly said " eo melior." 

From the preceding examples and observations it must 



48 ETYMOLOGY. 

appear, that the definite article, and the word that, though 
not strictly synonymous, are words nearly of the same im- 
port. Their difference seems to be, 

1st, That the article the, like a, must have a substan- 
tive conjoined with it ; whereas that, like one, may have 
it understood. Speaking of books, I may select one and 
say, " give me that,'''' but not " give me the ;" " give me 
owe," but not " give me a." Here the analogy holds be- 
tween a and one, the and that. 

2dly, As the difference between a and one seems to be, 
that one denotes unity in contradistinction to more, with 
greater emphasis than a, so the distinction in general be- 
tween the and that is, that the latter marks the object 
more emphatically than the former, being indirectly op- 
posed to this. I cannot say, " there goes that man with 
that long beard," without implying a contrast with " this 
man with this long beard, ,, the word that being always 
emphatical and discriminative. 

The opinion here offered, respecting these words, re- 
ceives some corroboration from the following circum- 
stances : 

In Latin ille frequently supplies the place of our de- 
finite article. " Thou art the man." Tu es ille (iste) 
homo. 

The le in French is clearly a derivative from ille, of 
which the former syllable il expresses he, and the latter 
denotes that unemphatically, serving as the definite ar- 
ticle. From the same source also proceed the Italian 
articles il, lo, la. 

In Hebrew, in like manner, our definite article is ex- 
pressed by the prefix of the pronoun ille; thus, aretz, terra, 
" earth ;"* haretz, ilia seu hac terra, " the earth," the let- 
ter he abbreviated from hou, ille, expressing the ; — ashri 
haish,\ beatus ille vir, " happy the man," or " that man," 
the he in like manner signifying the or that. 

It appears to me then, that as ae, ane, when not op- 

* 2na man. t raw? nttw. 



ETYMOLOGY. 49 

posed to more, and therefore unemphatical, by celerity of 
pronunciation were changed into a, an ; so that, when not 
opposed to this, or when it was unemphatical, was short- 
ened to the. Hence, the words termed articles seem to 
be the name of unity, and the demonstrative word that 
abbreviated. 

Besides the words a, an, the, there are others which 
may be considered as reducible to the same class with 
these ; such as this, that, any, other, some, all, one, none. 
This and that I have already considered. That they are 
not pronouns is evident, for they are never used as the 
representatives of a noun, and always require to be asso- 
ciated with a substantive. If ever they appear without 
this accompaniment, it will invariably be found that the 
expression is elliptical, some substantive or other being 
necessarily understood. If I say, " This was a noble ac- 
tion. 11 This what ? " This action." " This is true vir- 
tue." This what ? " This practice," " this habit," " this 
temper." To what class of words I conceive them to be- 
long has been already mentioned. 

One is a word significant of unity, and cannot, without 
manifest impropriety, be called a pronominal adjective ; 
unless, by an abuse of all language, we be disposed to 
name two, three, four, pronominal adjectives. 

Some is reducible to the same class, denoting an inde- 
finite, but comparatively to many, a small number. 

Many, few, several, are words of the same order, signi- 
ficant of number indefinitely. 

None, or not one, implies the negation of all number, 
exclusive even of unity itself. 

Other, which is improperly considered by some as a 
pronoun, is the Saxon o'Ser coming from o^fte. The 
Arabic ahd, the Hebrew had, or ahad, the Saxon c^e, 
the Teutonic odo, and the Swedish udda, with our Eng- 
lish word odd, seem all to have sprung from the same 
origin, the etymon expressing " one separately," or " one 
by itself," answering nearly to the Latin singulus. The 



50 ETYMOLOGY. 

English word odd plainly indicates its affinity to these 
words. We say, " He is an odd character, 1 ' or " singular 
character." " He had some odd ones," that is, " some 
separate from the rest," not paired, or connected with 
them, " single."* 

" As he in soueraine dignity is odde, 
So will he in loue no parting felowes have." 

Sir T. More's Works. 

The same idea of singularity and separation is express- 
ed by other ; which is now generally used as a compara- 
tive, and followed by than. ¥ 

Other is sometimes used substantively, and has then 
a plural number, as, " Let others serve whom they will : 
as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." The 
word one has a plural number when an assemblage of 
units is expressed, not in the aggregate, but individually ; 
and then it is used as a substantive, as, " I saw a great 
many fine ones." It is also used indefinitely, in the same 
sense with the French on, as, " One would imagine these 
to be expressions of a man blessed with ease." — Atterbury. 
And, in using it in this sense, it may be observed, in 

* Home Tooke appears to me to have erred in deriving odd from ow'd. 
His words are these : " Odd is the participle ow'd. Thus, when we are 
counting by couples or pairs, we say, ' one pair/ ' two pairs/ &c. and 
' one ow'd/ ' two ow'd/ to make up another pair. It has the same 
meaning when we say, ' an odd man/ { an odd action/ it still relates to 
pairing ; and we mean ' without a fellow/ ' unmatched/ " Now, I must 
own, this appears to me a very odd explanation ; for, in my apprehen- 
sion, it leads to a conclusion, the very reverse of that which the author 
intends. The term odd is applied to the one which stands by itself, and 
not to that which is absent, or ow'd, to complete the pair. If I say, 
" there are three pairs, and an odd one," the word odd refers to the single 
one, over and above the three pairs, and not to the one which is wanting ; 
yet Mr. Tooke refers it to the latter. His explanation seems at once un- 
natural and absurd. Had he substituted, according to his own etymo- 
logy, add for and, saying, " three pairs, add an ow'd one," he must, I 
think, have perceived its inaccuracy. It is the odd and present one, of 
which the singularity is predicated, and not the absent or ow'd one. 



ETYMOLOGY. 51 

passing, that an error is often committed by employing 
the personal pronouns as referring to one ; thus, " One is 
apt to exaggerate his own injuries,'" instead of "one's 
own injuries." It is sometimes, though rarely, used as 
referring to a plural noun. " The Romans and the Cartha- 
ginians now took the field ; the one ambitious of conquest, 
and the others in self-defence." This mode of expression 
is objectionable. We should rather say, " the former 1 ' 
and " the latter." 

Any, an, a, one, seem all to be nearly equivalent words, 
and derived from one origin, I mean from ane, the name 
of unity. Hence a, or an, and any, are frequently syno- 
nymous. " A considerate man would have acted dif- 
ferently ;" that is, " any considerate man." Hence also, 
like one, it is opposed to none, as, " Have you a book (any 
book) which you can lend me ?" " None ; my books are 
in the country ; nor, if they were here, have I any (or 
one) which would suit you." From expressing one in- 
definitely, like a or an, it came, by an easy and natural 
transition, to denote " whatever it be? " what you 'pleased 
" Give me one (ane), any, no matter which." In this 
sense it corresponds to the Latin quivis or quilibet* in 
affirmative sentences ; whereas, in interrogative or nega- 
tive sentences, it corresponds to quisquam, quispiam, or 
ullus. The preceding observations it may be useful to 
recapitulate. 

Nouns are names of genera, and not of individuals ; 
our perceptions are, on the contrary, all individual, not 
general. Hence, to denote one or more individuals of a 
species, numerals, or words significant of number, were 
invented. Some express a precise number, as, one, two, 
three ; others number indefinitely, as, some, few, many, 
several. Our perceptions being all individual, and one 

* " Quivis seu quilibet affirmat ; quisquam, quispiam, ullus, aut negat aut 
interrogat," are the words of an ancient grammarian. It is observable 
also, that in Latin, ullus, any, is a diminutive from unus, one ; as any in 
English is from ane, the name of unity, as formerly used. 

E 2 



52! ETYMOLOGY. 

being the basis of all number, the term significant of unity 
must frequently recur in expressing our sentiments. To 
denote this idea our forefathers employed ae, ane. In the 
progress of language, where unity was not to be express- 
ed, as opposed to two or more, the terms, thus becoming 
unemphatical, would naturally be abbreviated into a, an. 
These latter, therefore, are the offspring of the names of 
unity, and belong to the class of words named cardinal 
numerals. To what part of speech these are reducible 
(if they can be reduced to any) it is difficult to determine. 
In some languages they have the form of adjectives ; but, 
if their meaning be considered, it is clear that they have 
no claim to this appellation, as they express no accident, 
quality, or property whatever. In fact, they appear to 
be a species of words totally different in character from 
any of the parts of speech generally received ; all of them, 
except the first of the series, being abbreviations for the 
name of unity repeated. 

It being necessary not only to express an individual in- 
definitely of any species, but also to specify and select 
some particular one, which at first would probably be 
done by pointing to the object, if in sight, the words this 
and that, hence called demonstratives, were employed ; 
the one to express the nearer, the other the more distant 
object. From one of these proceeded the word the, having 
the same relation to its original as a or an has to the name 
of unity. Hence the words synonymous with this and 
that, in those languages which have no definite article, are 
frequently employed to supply its place. 

The use of these terms being to express any individual 
whatever of a class, and likewise some certain or parti- 
cular object ; we have also the words few, some, many, 
several, to denote a number indefinitely, and the car- 
dinal numerals two, three, four, &c. a precise number of 
individuals. 



ETYMOLOGY. 53 



CHAPTER III. 



OF PRONOUNS. 



Whether we speak of things present, or of things 
absent, of ourselves, or of others, and to whomsoever we 
address our discourse, the repetition of the names of those 
persons or things would not only be tiresome, but also 
sometimes productive of ambiguity. Besides, the name of 
the person addressed may be unknown to the speaker, and 
the name of the speaker may be unknown to the person 
addressed. Hence appears the utility of pronouns, words, 
as the etymology of the term denotes, supplying the place 
of nouns. They have therefore been denominated by some 
grammarians, nouns of the second order. 

When the person who addresses speaks of himself, the 
pronoun I, called the pronoun of the first person, is em- 
ployed instead of the name of the speaker, as, " The Lord 
said to Moses, / (the Lord) am the God of Abraham. 1 ' 

When the person addressed is the subject of discourse, 
the pronoun thou, called the pronoun of the second person, 
is used instead of his name, as, " Nathan said unto David, 
thou (David) art the man." 

When neither the person who speaks, nor the person 
addressed, but some other person or thing, is the subject of 
discourse, we employ the pronouns of the third person, 
namely, he, she, it ; as, " When Jesus saw the multitude, 
he (Jesus) had compassion on them." 

I have said that pronouns are employed to prevent the 
tiresome repetition of names. It is not, however, to be hence 
inferred, that even the repetition of the name would, in all 



54 ETYMOLOGY. 

cases, answer the same purpose, or denote the subject with 
the same precision as the pronoun. For, as there is hardly 
any name, strictly speaking, proper or peculiar to one in- 
dividual, the employment of a name, belonging to more 
persons than one, would not so clearly specify or individu- 
ate the object as the appropriate pronoun. Hence it would 
often be necessary to subjoin to the name some distinctive 
circumstances, to discriminate the person intended from 
others of that name ; or the speaker would be obliged to 
point to the individual, if he happened to be present. Nay, 
though the person or subject designed might be thus suf- 
ficiently ascertained, it is easy to see that the phraseology 
would have nothing of that simplicity and energy which 
accompany the pronoun. If, in the first example, instead 
of saying, " I am the God," we should say, " The Lord is 
the God ;" or in the second, instead of " Thou art the man," 
" David is the man," the energy of the expression would 
be entirely destroyed. If any person, speaking of himself, 
should distinguish himself from others of the same name, 
by subjoining the necessary discriminating circumstances, 
so as to leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer, it is ob- 
vious that this phraseology would not only be inelegant, 
but also feeble and unimpressive. To be convinced of the 
truth of this observation, it is only necessary to compare 
the exanimate, stiff, and frequently obscure diction of a 
common card, with the freedom, perspicuity, and vivacity 
of a letter. 

Pronouns may be divided into substantive and adjective, 
personal and impersonal, relative and interrogative. The 
personal substantive pronouns are I, thou, he, she. The 
impersonal substantive pronoun is it. 

The personal substantive pronouns have three cases, and 
are thus declined : 





ETYMOLOGY. 




First Person, Masc. and Fern. 




Sing. Plur. 


Nom. 


I* We 


Gen. 


Mine Ours 


Obj. 


Me Us. 



55 



Second Person, Masc. and Fern. 



Nom. 


Thouf 


Ye or you 


Gen. 


Thine 


Yours 


Obj. 


Thee 


You. 



* In Anglo-Saxon ic, in German ich, in Greek eyw, in Latin ego. Mr. 
Webb delivered it as his opinion, that the pronoun of the first person was 
derived from the Hebrew ech or ach, one, used by apocope for achad or 
ahad, he added, "oned" or "united." It is doubtless true, that ech 
occurs in one or two passages for one : see Ezek. xviii. 10. and Ps. xlix. 
8 ; in which latter passage it is rendered in our translation, brother, and 
by R. Jonah, one ; but we apprehend that this fact will by no means 
justify his conclusion. And as he considered that the pronoun of the first 
person radically denoted one, he imagined that the pronoun of the second 
person came from the numeral duo, du, tu, thu. Now, it must be granted 
that there is an obvious resemblance between ic and ech, and also between 
duo, tu, and thu ; but were we to draw any conclusion from this similar- 
ity, it would be the reverse of that which the author has deduced. It 
seems quite preposterous to suppose, that the necessity for expressing a 
number would present itself, before that of discriminating between the 
person speaking and the person addressed. The rude savage could not 
converse with his fellow without some sign of this distinction ; and if 
visible signs (as is probable) would be first adopted, we may reasonably 
presume, on several grounds, that these would soon give place to audible 
expressions. 

The pronoun ic is in Saxon declined thus : 

Sing. Nom. Ic Gen. Min Bat. Me Ace. Me 

Plur. Nom. We Gen. Ure Dat. Us Ace, Us. 

t The pronoun of the second person is thus declined : 

Sing. Nom. Thu Gen. Thin Dat. The Ace. The 

Plur. Nom. Ge (hard) Gen. Eower Dat. and Ace. Eow. 



56 





ETYMOLOGY. 






Third Person. 






Masc. 






Sing. 


Plur. 


Nom. 


He* 


They 


Gen. 


His 


Theirs 


Obj, 


Him 

Fern. 


Them, 


Nom. 


Shef 


They 


Gen. 


Hers 


Theirs 


Obj. 


Her 

Third Person. 

Neuter. 

Impersonal. 


Them. 


Nom. 


It} 


They§ 


Gen. 


Its 


Theirs 


Obj. 


It 


Them. 



My, thy, our, your, their, being the representatives of 
nouns, have the essential character of pronouns. Thus, 
when Decius says to Cato, " Caesar is well acquainted with 
your virtues,'" the pronoun is employed as a substitute for 
Gators. As they express not only the subject, but also 
the relation of property or possession, they are by some 
grammarians considered to be the genitives of their respec- 
tive substantive pronouns. In usage, however, they are 
distinguished from the English genitive by their incapacity 
to stand alone. Thus we say, " It is the king's," " It is 
yours;" but we cannot say, " It is your," the presence of 
a noun being necessary to the last expression. They are, 
therefore, more correctly named pronominal adjectives. 



* The Anglo-Saxon he is declined thus : 

Sing. Nom. He Gen. His Dat. and Ace. Him. 

f Sing. Nom. Heo Gen. Hire Dat. Hire Ace. Hi. 

\ This pronoun is from the Anglo-Saxon hyt or hit, "i " or " that." 
§ In Anglo-Saxon hi, in Teutonic die. 



ETYMOLOGY. 57 

For the purpose of denoting emphatically the relation of 
possession or property, the word own is frequently joined 
to them, as, my own, thy own, our own. And to mark the 
person with emphasis, they are compounded with the word 
self; in Saxon, sylf ; from the Gothic silba, ipse : thus, 
myself, thyself; ourselves, yourselves. Theirselves is now 
obsolete, themselves being used in its stead. 

The pronouns of the first and second persons are either 
masculine or feminine. The reason is, says Mr. Harris, 
because the sex of the speaker and of the person addressed 
is generally obvious. This explanation, which has been 
adopted by most grammarians, appears to me unsatisfac- 
tory and erroneous. Others have said that the pronouns 
of the first and second persons have no distinction of sex, 
because all distinction of this kind is foreign to the inten- 
tion of the speaker, who, when he uses the pronoun I, 
means the person who speaks, be it man or woman ; and 
when he employs the pronoun thou, means the person ad- 
dressed, without any regard to the sex of the individual. 
This matter seems sufficiently plain. Language, to be 
useful, must be perspicuous and intelligible, exhibiting the 
subject and its attributes with clearness and precision. If 
it should be asked why the pronoun of the third person has 
three varieties, Mr. Harris would answer, " to mark the 
sex." If it were inquired whence arises the necessity of 
marking the sex, he would answer, and very justly, "in 
order to ascertain the subject of discourse." It is obvious, 
therefore, that to note the sex is not the primary object, 
and that the principal aim of the speaker is to discriminate 
and mark the subject. The pronouns of the first and 
second persons have no variety of form significant of sex, 
because the speaker and the person addressed are evident 
without it. Mr. Harris, therefore, should have said that 
the pronouns in question have no distinction of gender, 
not because the sex of the speaker and of the person ad- 
dressed, but because the persons themselves are in general 
obvious without the aid of sexual designation. The inten- 



58 ETYMOLOGY. 

tion of the speaker is not to denote the sex, but the person 
spoken of, whether male or female; to ascertain which 
person, if absent, the discrimination of sex is generally 
necessary. The sex, therefore, enters not as an essential, 
but as an explanatory circumstance ; not as the subject of 
discourse, but to distinguish the subject. Where the per- 
son is present, and is either the speaker or the person ad- 
dressed, discrimination of sex becomes unnecessary, the 
pronoun itself marking the individuals. When the person 
or subject of discourse is absent, the distinction of sex 
serves frequently to determine the subject. Hence the 
pronoun of the third person has three varieties, he for the 
masculine, she for the feminine, and it for the neuter. 

The four personal pronouns, I, thou, he, and she, have 
three cases, viz. the nominative or leading case, ex- 
pressing the principal subject, and preceding the verb ; the 
genitive case, whose form and office have been already de- 
fined ; and the objective, accusative, or following case (for 
it has obtained these three names), expressing the object 
to which the energy is directed, or the subject acted upon. 
This case follows the verb. 

Mine, thine, hers, theirs, his, yours, ours, are truly 
pronouns in the possessive or genitive case. Johnson has 
indeed said that my and mine are words precisely synony- 
mous, my, according to him, being used before a consonant, 
and mine before a vowel ; as, my sword, mine arm. It is 
doubtless true that mine and thine are sometimes used as 
my and thy, which are not substantive pronouns but pro- 
nominal adjectives; but that they are not precisely syno- 
nymous or mutually convertible, is obvious ; for my and 
thy cannot be used for mine and thine, though mine and 
thine, as has been observed, may be used for my and 
thy. Example : " Whose book is this ?" I cannot answer, 
" it is my," but " it is mine." We may indeed say 
64 it is my book ;" but the addition of the substantive is 
necessary. 

As my and mine, thy and thine, our and ours, your and 



ETYMOLOGY. 59 

yours, their and theirs, are not mutually convertible, they 
cannot be regarded as synonymous each with its fellow. 

This and that, which have improperly been referred by 
some to the class of pronouns, have been considered already. 
The former makes in the plural these, the latter those. 

The relative pronouns, so called because they directly 
relate or refer to a substantive preceding, which is there- 
fore termed the antecedent, are, who, which, that. 

The pronoun who is of the masculine or feminine gender, 
referring to persons, male or female. The pronoun which 
is neuter. That is common to the three genders. 





Sing* and Plur. 


Sing, and Plur. 


Norn. 


Who* 


Which 


Gen. 


Whose 


Whose 


Obj. 


Whom 


Which. 



Lowth, and several other grammarians, have asserted, 
that the pronoun which admits no variation. Numberless 
examples, however, from the best authors might be cited 
to disprove this assertion. Shakspeare occasionally uses 
tvhose as the genitive of which ; and, since his time, writers 
of the highest eminence have employed it in the same 
manner. 

" Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit 
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste." — Milton. 

61 The lights and shades, whose well accorded strife 
Gives all the strength and colour of our life." — Pope. 

u A true critic is like a dog at a feast, whose thoughts 
and stomach are wholly set on what the guests fling 
away." — Swift. 

This usage is favourable to conciseness, and can very 
seldom create ambiguity. Where obscurity indeed is 

* In Anglo-Saxon, hwa, hua; Gen. hwaes ; Dat. hwam ; Ace. hwasne, 
hwone. Also hicile, whence, says Ilickes, proceeded tvhich, the letter / 
being elided. 



60 ETYMOLOGY. 

apprehended, the periphrasis, of which, should be adopted. 
I have, therefore, given whose as the genitive of which ; 
not only because this usage is sanctioned by classical au- 
thority, but likewise, because the other form, of which, is 
frequently awkward and inelegant. 

Who is applied to persons, that is, to animals distin- 
guished by rationality, or represented as possessing it. 
" The man who has no music in himself." — Shakspeare. 

The antecedent man, being a person, is followed by who. 

"A stag, who came to drink at a river, seeing his own 
image in the clear stream, said thus to himself." 

Here the stag is represented as possessing reason and 
speech, and therefore the pronoun who is employed. In 
mythological writings in general, such as the Fables of 
iEsop, inferior animals are very properly denoted by the 
personal relative. 

Which is applied to things inanimate, and creatures 
either devoid of all indications of rationality, or repre- 
sented as such. " The city, which Romulus built, was 
called Rome." Here which is used, the word city being 
the antecedent, to which it refers. 

" The sloth, which is a creature remarkable for inac- 
tivity, lives on leaves and the flowers of trees." Here the 
sloth, an animal hardly possessing sensation or life, is 
expressed by which. 

The rule here given for the use of these pronouns is not 
uniformly observed, several good writers occasionally ap- 
plying them indifferently to inferior animals, without any 
determinate principle of discrimination. It would be better, 
however, were this rule universally followed ; and if such 
modes of expression as " frequented by that fowl, whom 
nature has taught," were entirely repudiated. 

Priestley, whose doctrine on this subject seems nearly 
to coincide with ours, has even objected to the application 
of the pronoun who to children, because this pronoun con- 
veys an idea of persons possessing reason and reflection, of 



ETYMOLOGY. 61 

which mere children are incapable. He, therefore, dis- 
approves of Cadogan's phraseology, when he says, " a 
child who. 1 ' 

That is applied indiscriminately to things animate and 
inanimate, and admits no variation. 

The pronouns who, which, and that, are sometimes re- 
solvable into and he, and she, and it. Mr. Harris, indeed, 
has said, that the pronoun qui (who) may be always 
resolved into et Me, a, ud (and he, and she, and it). 
This opinion, however, is not perfectly correct ; for it is 
thus resolvable in those examples only in which the re- 
lative clause does not limit or modify the meaning of the 
antecedent. If I say, " Man who is born of a woman, is 
of few days and full of trouble," the relative clause is not 
restrictive : I may, therefore, resolve the pronoun, and 
say, " Man is of few days, and he is born of woman. 1 ' 
" Light is a body which moves with great velocity,"" is re- 
solvable into " Light is a body, and it moves with great 
velocity ." But when the relative clause limits the meaning 
of the antecedent, the relative is clearly not thus resolvable. 
" Virgil was the only epic poet, among the Romans, who 
can be compared to Homer." The signification of the 
antecedent is here restricted by the relative clause ; we 
cannot, therefore, by resolution, say, " Virgil was the only 
epic poet among the Romans, and he can be compared to 
Homer ;" for the former of these propositions is not true, 
nor is the sentiment, which it conveys, accordant with the 
meaning of the author. 

The pronoun what, if not employed interrogatively, is 
equivalent to that which ; and is applicable to inanimate 
things only, as, " I believe what I see," or, "that which I see." 

What admits no variation. 

The relative pronouns who, which, are often used inter- 
rogatively, and are, therefore, in such cases considered 
as interrogatives. When thus employed, it is the opinion 
of the author of the British Grammar, that they still 
retain their relative character. " The only difference," 



62 ETYMOLOGY. 

says he, " is this, that the relative refers to an antecedent 
and definite subject, and the interrogative to something 
subsequent and unknown." The example which he ad- 
duces in support of his opinion is the following : " Who 
first seduced them to that foul revolt ?" " The very 
question," says he, " supposes a seducer, to which, though 
unknown, the pronoun who has a reference." Answer, 
" The infernal serpent." He continues. " Here, in the 
answer, we have the subject, which was indefinite, ascer- 
tained ; so that the who in the interrogation is as much 
a relative as if it had been said originally, without any 
interrogation at all, " It was the infernal serpent who 
seduced them." Others adopt an opinion diametrically 
opposite, contending that who and which are properly in- 
terrogatives, and that even, when used as relatives, they 
still retain their interrogative character. This theory a 
few examples will sufficiently illustrate. 

" The man who ?" (which man ?) his character follows, 
" has no music in himself." 

" The city which ? (what city ?) Romulus built was 
called Rome." 

" Happy the man whose cautious feet." 
" Happy that man who ? his (whose) cautious feet." 
" Light is a body which ? (body) moves with great 
velocity." 

Of these two theories I have no hesitation in adopting 
the former. My reasons are these. The intention of lan- 
guage is to communicate our sentiments ; to express what 
we think, feel, perceive, or desire. Hence its general cha- 
racter is indicative or assertive. " I believe," " I wish," 
" I see," are affirmative sentences ; and whatever variety 
of forms the phraseology may assume, they are all strictly 
significant of assertion, and all resolvable into the language 
of affirmation. "Go," "teach," "read," are equivalent 
to, " I desire you to go," " to teach," " to read." " Have 
you finished your task ?" means, when the sentiment 
is fully expressed, " I desire to know, whether you have 



ETYMOLOGY. 63 

finished your task." Ellipses of this kind are natural. 
They spring from an eagerness to impart to the vehicle of 
our thoughts a degree of celerity, suited to the promptitude 
with which the mind conceives them. Vehemence or pas- 
sion, impatient of delay, uniformly resorts to them. The 
assertive form of expression I therefore conceive to be 
the parent whence every other is derived, and to which it 
is reducible. If this be the case, no interrogative, con- 
ceived purely as such, can claim so early an origin as 
definite or affirmative terms. Hence we may conclude, 
that who, which, when, where, were at first used as re- 
latives, and came afterwards, by implication, to denote 
interrogations. 

Again, we know that the meaning of an expression is 
frequently collected, not so much from the strict import of 
the terms, as from the tone or manner in which it is 
delivered. If I say, " he did it," the sentence is affir- 
mative ; yet, by the tone of voice or manner of the speaker, 
this affirmative sentence may denote an interrogation. 
Thus, " he did it ?" by an elevation of the voice, or the 
mode of notation, may be rendered equivalent to " did 
he do it ?" " Who did it " is in like manner an affir- 
mative clause; but it is obvious that this form of ex- 
pression, like the other now adduced, may be likewise 
employed to denote an interrogation, thus, " Who did 
it ?" And it is evident, that, if the ellipsis be supplied, 
the sentence would read thus, " I want to know who did 
it ?" The preceding clause, however, is sufficiently sup- 
plied by the manner of the speaker. An ellipsis of this 
kind seems to be involved in every interrogation. If I 
say, " did he do it ?" it is equivalent to " tell me, if 
he did it ?" Accordingly, we find that the Latins, in such 
interrogations, employed only the latter clause ; for an 
(whether), which is termed an interrogative, is, in fact, 
nothing but the Greek av, synonymous with si (if) among 
the Latins. " An fecit,'" did he do it ? is therefore 
strictly equivalent to " si fecit," if he did it, the former 



64 ETYMOLOGY. 

clause, " tell me," being understood, and its import sup- 
plied by the manner of the speaker, or the mode of 
notation. 

Besides, let any person ask himself what idea he an- 
nexes to the word who, considered as an interrogative, 
and I am persuaded he will be sensible that he cannot 
form any distinct conception of its import. 

I am inclined therefore to think that interrogatives are 
strictly relatives ; and that these relatives, by the aid of 
voice, gesture, or some explanatory circumstance, answer 
the purpose of interrogation. 

In using these pronouns interrogatively, it is to be 
observed, that who and which are each applied to persons, 
which is not the case when they are employed as rela- 
tives. This difference, however, is to be observed, that 
when the pronoun which is used interrogatively, and ap- 
plied to persons, it is generally, if not always, understood 
that the character of the individual, who is the object 
of inquiry, is in presence of the inquirer, or is in some 
degree known. Who is more indefinite. If I say, " which 
is the man ?" I mean " who of those now before me ?" 
or of those who have been described ? Agreeably to this 
notion, we say, " which of the two," not " who of the 
two,"" was guilty of this crime? 

If I say, "Who is the man that will dare to affirm ?" 
it implies that I am entirely a stranger to him, and that I 
even doubt his existence. " Which is the man ?" not 
only implies his existence, but also that the aggregate of 
individuals, whence the selection is made, is known to 
me. 

What is also used interrogatively, and is employed in 
introducing questions, whether the subject be persons or 
things, as, " What man is that ?" " What book is this ?" 
When no substantive is subjoined, it is then wholly in- 
definite, as " What is man, that thou art mindful of him ?" 
When we inquire, therefore, into the character of any 
person, and not for the individual himself, it is to be re- 



ETYMOLOGY. 65 

membered, that we employ this pronoun, and not who or 
which. 

There seems to be the same difference between who and 
what definite, as between who and which. If I say, "What 
man will dare to affirm this ?" and " Which man will 
dare ?" &c, it is obvious that the former interrogatory is 
more indefinite than the latter ; the one implying a total 
ignorance of the individual, and some doubt of his exist- 
ence; the other, that he is one of a number in some 
degree known to the inquirer. 

When any defining clause is subjoined, either may be 
used, as, " What, or which man among you, having a 
hundred sheep, and losing one, would not leave the ninety 
and nine ?" 

The pronoun whether is equivalent to " which of the 
two." It is the Teutonic word wether, bearing the same 
relation to wer, " who" or " which," as either does to ein, 
" one," and neither, newether, to nie or nehein, " none." 

This word, though now generally employed or considered 
as a conjunction, is in truth reducible to the class of words 
which we are now examining, and is precisely synonymous 
with uter, tra, trum, of the Latins. " Whether is easier 
to say r— Bible. 

Here ivhether is truly a pronoun, and is the nominative 
to the following verb. 

" Whether is greater, the gold or the temple ?" — Ibid. 

In these examples, whether is precisely the same with 
" which of the two." It seems now to be giving place 
to the word which, as the comparative, when two things 
are compared, is often supplanted by the superlative. 
Thus we often say, when speaking of two, " which is the 
best," instead of " whether is better." The Latins almost 
uniformly observed the distinction: — " Uter dignior, quis 
dignissimus." — Quint. 

The pronoun it is used indefinitely, and applied to per- 
sons or things. 

Dr. Johnson has objected to the use of this pronoun in 



66 ETYMOLOGY. 

those examples wherein the pronouns of the first or second 
persons are employed ; and Dr. Lowth has censured it 
when referring to a plural number, as in the following 
example : 

" Tis these, that give the great Atrides spoils." — Pope. 

I concur, however, with the learned author of the Phi- 
losophy of Rhetoric, who regards the objections of these 
critics as, in this instance, of no weight. For when a 
question is asked, the subject of which is totally unknown, 
there must be some indefinite word employed to denote 
the subject of the interrogation. The word which we use 
for this purpose is it, as, " Who is it ?" " What is it ?" 
This phraseology is established by universal usage, and is 
therefore unexceptionable. This being the case, there can 
be no impropriety in repeating in the answer the indefinite 
term employed in the question. We may therefore reply, 
" It is I," " It is he," " It is she." 

Now, if the term be admitted in questions and answers 
where the subject may be either male or female, and of the 
first, second, or third person, it surely is admissible in 
those cases also where the subject is in the plural number. 
Nay, to use in the answer any other word to express the sub- 
ject than that by which it is signified in the question, would 
be in all cases, if not productive of ambiguity, at least 
less precise. " Who is it ?" says a master to his servant, 
hearing a voice in the hall. "It is the gentlemen who 
called yesterday ," replies the servant. Who sees not that 
" they are the gentlemen 1 ' would be an answer less accord- 
ant with the terms of the question, and would less clearly 
show that " the gentlemen," and " the subject of inquiry," 
both being denoted by one term, are one and the same ? 
Had the master known that it was the voice of a gentle- 
man, and that there were more than one, and had he 
accordingly said, " Who are they ?" the answer would 
have properly been " They are the gentlemen." But when 
the question is "Who is it ?" I apprehend the only apposite 
answer is, " It is the gentlemen,' 1 the identity of the terms 



ETYMOLOGY. 67 

(it being repeated) clearly evincing an identity of sub- 
ject in the question and in the answer ; in other words, 
that the subject of the inquiry, and the subject of the 
answer, are one and the same. 

I conclude with observing, that, though I have here 
considered the word that as a pronoun, there can be no 
question that in its import it is precisely the same with 
the demonstrative that, which has been already explained. 
" The house that you built is burned," is resolvable thus, 
a The house is burned, you built that." 



f 2 



68 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER IV. 



OF THE ADJECTIVE. 



An adjective has been defined by most grammarians to 
be " that part of speech which signifies an accident, 
quality, or property of a thing." This definition appears 
to me to be somewhat defective and incorrect : for the 
adjective does not express the quality simply, but the 
quality, or property, as conjoined with a substance ; or, 
as grammarians have termed it, in concreto. Thus, when 
we say " good man," goodness is the name of the quality, 
and good is the adjective expressing that quality, as con- 
joined with the subject man. Accordingly, every adjec- 
tive is resolvable into the name of the thing implied, and 
any term of reference or conjunction, as of, with. Thus 
" a prudent man" is equivalent to " a man with" or 
" join prudence," or to " a man of prudence." An ad- 
jective, therefore, is that part of speech which denotes 
any substance or attribute, not by itself, but as conjoined 
with a subject, or pertaining to its character. This con- 
junction is generally marked by changing the termination 
of the simple name of the substantive or attribute, as, 
fool, foolish, wax, waxen. Sometimes no change is made; 
and the simple name of the substance, or attribute, is 
prefixed to the name of the subject, as, sea fowl, race 
horse, cornfield. In writing these, and similar expres- 
sions, the conjunction is sometimes marked by a hyphen, 
as sea-fowl, river-fish, wine-vessel. 

As every appellative denotes the whole of a genus or 
species, the intention and effect of the adjective is, by 
limiting the generic meaning of the substantive, to specify 



ETYMOLOGY. 69 

what part of the genus or species is the subject of dis- 
course. If I say " man," the term is universal : it em- 
braces the species. If I say " a man," the expression is 
indefinite, being applicable to any individual of the kind. 
If I say " a good man," I confine the term to an in- 
dividual distinguished by goodness. Here man expresses 
the substance; and good the quality in concreto. Some- 
times, on the contrary, the substantive is the general 
name of the quality or property ; and the adjective mo- 
difies or determines its degree, as, wisdom, little wisdom. 
Let us take another example. The word stone is appli- 
cable to a whole species of substances. If I say round 
stone, I confine the meaning of the substantive to that 
part of the genus which is distinguished by roundness. 
Here the substantive denotes the matter, or substance, in 
general, and the adjective limits its signification, by ex- 
pressing the form. Sometimes the converse takes place, 
as golden globe. Here the substantive is the generic name 
of a certain figure ; and the adjective, by expressing the 
matter, confines that figure to the substance of gold. 

Some grammarians have denominated this part of speech 
by the name of adjective noun ; to others this designation 
appears inadmissible. The latter observe, that neither is 
the adjective the name of anything, nor is it in English 
variable, like the substantive. They allow, that in Greek 
and Latin, the designation in question is, in some degree, 
justifiable, because, though the noun and adjective differ 
essentially in office, in these languages, they agree in 
form ; but in our language they deem it a singular im- 
propriety.* 

I have said that the adjective denotes a substance, 

* Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly termed ad- 
jective noun, and " that it is altogether as much the name of a thing, as 
the noun substantive." Names and designations necessarily influence our 
conceptions of the things which they represent. It is therefore desirable, 
that in every art or science, not only should no term be employed which 
may convey to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of the thing 
signified, but that every term should assist him in forming a just idea of 



70 ETYMOLOGY. 

quality, or property, " as pertaining," or in concreto. 
Now, it is to be observed, that substances do not ad- 
mit degrees of more or less, in regard to their essen- 
tial character. " A wooden table" cannot be more or less 
wooden. " An iron bar" cannot be more or less such. In 
these cases, the adjective, as I have already remarked, by 
expressing the matter, limits the form to one species of 
substance. The same observation is applicable to the con- 
verse circumstance, in which the form strictly limits the 
matter, as " triangular board." Here it is obvious, that 
the substance limited to one form by the term triangular, 

the object which it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke in think- 
ing, that the adjective is by no means a necessary part of speech. I 
agree with him also in opinion, that, in a certain sense, all words are 
nouns or names. But, as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant 
to the concurrent theories of critics and grammarians, it is necessary to 
explain in what sense the opinion of Mr. Tooke requires to be understood ; 
and in presenting the reader with this explanation, I shall briefly state 
the objections which will naturally offer themselves against the justness 
of this theory. " Gold, and brass, and silk, is each of them," says Mr. 
Tooke, " the name of a thing, and denotes a substance. If, then, I say, 
a gold-ring, a brass- tube, a silk-string; here are the substantives adjective 
posita, yet names of things, and denoting substances." It may be con- 
tended, however, that these are not substantives, but adjectives, and are 
the same as golden, brazen, silken. He proceeds : " If again I say, a 
golden ring, a brazen tube, a silken string ; do gold, and brass, and silk, 
cease to be the names of things, and cease to denote substances, because, 
instead of coupling them with ring, tube, and string, by a hyphen thus 
(-), I couple them to the same words, by adding the termination en ?" 
It may be answered, they do not cease to imply the substances, but they 
are no longer names of those substances. Hard implies hardness, but it 
is not the name of that quality. Atheniensis implies Athena, but it is 
not the name of the city, any more than belonging to Athens can be 
called its name. He observes : " If it were true, that adjectives were 
not the names of things, there could be no attribution by adjectives ; for 
you cannot attribute nothing." This conclusion may be disputed. An 
adjective may imply a substance, quality, or property, though it is not 
the name of it- Cereus, " waxen," implies cera, " wax ;" but it is the i 
latter only which is strictly the name of the substance. Pertaining to\ 
ivax, made of wax, are not surely names of the thing itself. Every attri- 
butive, whether verb or adjective, must imply an attribute; but it is not 



ETYMOLOGY. 71 

cannot be more or less triangular. But this is not the case 
with qualities or properties, which may exist in different 
substances in different degrees. And, as it is sometimes 
necessary to express the existence of a quality, as greater 
or less in one substance than another, hence arises the 
utility of some form of expression to denote these relative 
degrees of its existence. It is in this case only, that the 
termination of the adjective admits variation ; and then it 
is said to be in a state of comparison. 

In all qualities susceptible of intension or remission, the 
number of degrees, from the lowest to the highest, may be 

therefore the name of that attribute. Juvenescit, " he waxes young," ex- 
presses an attribute; but we should not call juvenescit the name of the at- 
tribute. 

It may be asked, what is the difference between caput hominis, " a 
man's head," and caput humanum, " a human head " ? If hominis, 
11 man's," be deemed a noun, why should not humanum, " human," be 
deemed a noun also ? It may be answered, that hominis does, in fact, 
perform the office of an adjective, expressing not only the individual, 
but conjunction also ; and that Mr. Wallis assigns to the English geni- 
tive the name of adjective. Besides, does not Mr. Tooke himself main- 
tain " that case, gender, and number, are no parts of the noun " ? and 
does it not hence follow, that the real nouns are not hominis, but homo, — 
not man's, but man ? for such certainly is their form when divested of 
those circumstances which, according to Mr. Tooke, make no part of 
them . If the doctrine, therefore, of the learned author be correct, and if 
the real noun exclude gender, case, and number, as any part of it, 
neither hominis nor humanum, man's nor human, can, with consistency, be 
called nouns. 

But let Mr. Tooke's argument be applied to the verb, the to pr^xa, 
which he justly considers as an essential part of speech. " If verbs were 
not the names of things, there could be no attribution by verbs, for we 
cannot attribute nothing." Are we then to call sapit, vivit, legit, names ? 
If so, we have nothing but names ; and to this conclusion Mr. Tooke 
fairly brings the discussion : for he says, that all words are names. 

Having thus submitted to the reader the doctrine of this sagacious 
critic, with the objections which naturally present themselves, I proceed 
to observe, that the controversy appears to me to be, in a great degree, a 
mere verbal dispute. It is agreed on both sides, that the adjective ex- 
presses a substance, quality, or property ; but, while it is affirmed by 
some critics, it is denied by others, that it is the name of the thing sig- 



72 ETYMOLOGY. 

accounted infinite. Hardness, for example, gravity, mag- 
nitude, genius, wisdom, folly, are severally diversified by an 
infinitude of gradations, which it would elude the capacity 
of any language to discriminate. To denote these degrees 
is, therefore, utterly impracticable as it is wholly unneces- 
sary. 

In English, as in most other languages, we employ two 
variations : the one to denote simple excess, or a greater 
degree of the quality than that which is expressed by the 
adjective itself; and the other to denote the greatest ex- 

nified. The metaphysician considers words merely as signs of thought, 
while the grammarian regards chiefly their changes by inflexion : and 
hence arises that perplexity in which the classification of words has been, 
and still continues to be, involved. Now, it is evident that every word 
must be the sign of some sensation, idea, or perception. It must ex- 
press some substance or some attribute : and in this sense all words may 
be regarded as names. Sometimes we have the name of the thing simply, 
as person. Sometimes we have an accessary idea combined with the 
simple sign, as " possession," " conjunction," " action," and so forth, as 
personal, personally, personify. This accessary circumstance, we have 
reason to believe, was originally denoted by a distinct word, significant 
of the idea intended ; and that this word was, in the progress of language, 
abbreviated and incorporated with the primary term, in the form of what 
we now term an affix or prefix. Thus frigus, frigidus, friget, all denote 
the same primary idea, involving the name of that quality, or of that sen- 
sation, which we term cold. Frigus is the name of the thing simply ; 
frigidus expresses the quality, in concreto, or conjunction. Considering, 
therefore, all words as names, it may be regarded as a complex name, 
expressing two distinct ideas, — that of the quality, and that of conjunction. 
Friget (the subject being understood) may be regarded as a name still 
more complex; involving, first, the name of the quality; secondly, the 
name of conjunction ; thirdly, the sign of affirmation, as either expressed 
by an appropriate name, or constructively implied, equivalent to the 
three words, est cum frigore. According then to this metaphysical view 
of the subject, we have, first, nomen simplex, the simple name; secondly, 
nomen adjectivum or nomen duplex, the name of the thing, with that of 
conjunction ; thirdly, nomen affirmatmum, the name of the thing affirmed 
to be conjoined. 

The simple question now is, whether all words, not even the verb 
excepted, should be called nouns ; or whether we shall assign them such 
appellations as may indicate the leading circumstances by which they 
are distinguished. The latter appears to me to be the only mode which 



ETYMOLOGY. 73 

cess. Thus, if I compare wood with stone, as possessing 
the quality of hardness, I say, " wood is hard," " stone is 
harder.'" If I compare these with iron, I say, " wood is 
hard," " stone harder," " iron the hardest." Thus, in 
truth, there are only two degrees of comparison, viz. the 
comparative and the superlative, the positive expressing 
the quality simply and absolutely. 

The comparative is formed by adding er to the positive, 
if it end with a consonant ; or the letter r, if it end with a 
vowel ; as, soft, softer ; safe, safer. 

the grammarian, as the teacher of an art, can successfully adopt. Con- 
sidering the subject in this light, I am inclined to say with Mr. Harris, 
that the adjective, as implying some substance or attribute, not per se, 
but in conjunction, or as pertaining, is more nearly allied to the verb than 
to the noun; and that though the verb and the adjective may, in common 
with the noun, denote the thing, they cannot strictly be called its name. 
To say that foolish and folly are each names of the same quality, would, 
I apprehend, lead to nothing but perplexity and error. 

It is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple name of the 
subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from all right to this ap- 
pellation ; for it denotes, not the subject simply, but the subject in con- 
junction— the inflexion being equivalent to " belonging to." This indeed 
is an inconsistency which can in no way be removed, unless by adopting 
the opinion of Wallis, who assigns no cases to English nouns, and con- 
siders man's, king's, &c. to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. 
Tooke's definition of our adjective, and say, " It is the name of a thing 
which is directed to be joined to another name of a thing/' it will follow, 
that king's, mans, are adjectives. In short, if the question be confined to 
the English language, we must, in order to remove all inconsistency, 
either deny the appellation of noun to the adjective, and, with Wallis, 
call the genitive case an adjective ; or we must first call mans, king's, 
&c. adjectives; secondly, we must term happy, extravagant, mercenary, 
&c. nouns, though they are not names ; and thirdly, we must assign the 
appellation of noun to the verb itself. 

From this view of the subject the reader will perceive that the whole 
controversy depends on the meaning which we annex to the term noun. 
If by this term we denote simply the thing itself, without any accessary 
circumstance, then nothing can be called a noun but the name in its 
simple form. If to the term noun we assign a more extensive signifi- 
cation, as implying not only the thing itself simply and absolutely, but 
also auy accessary idea, as, conjunction, action, passion, and so forth, 
then it follows, that all words may be termed names. 



74 ETYMOLOGY. 

The superlative is formed by adding est or st, as, soft, 
softest ; safe, safest.* 

Some adjectives are compared irregularly, as, 



Pas. 


Camp. 


Super. 


Good 


Better 


Best 


Bad or Evil 


Worse 


Worst 


Little 


Less 


Least 


Much 


More 


Most 


Many 


More 


Most 


Near 


Nearer 


Nearest or next 


Late 


Later 


Latest or last. 



The comparative degree is frequently expressed by the 
word more, and the superlative by most, as, 

Pos. Comp. Super. 

Hard More hard Most hard. 

Monosyllabic adjectives are generally compared by an- 
nexing r or er, st or est ; adjectives of two or more sylla- 
bles by more and most, as, strong, stronger, strongest ; cer- 
tain, more certain, most certain. 

Dissyllabic adjectives in y form an exception to this rule, 
as, happy, happier, happiest. 

Adjectives of two syllables ending in le, after a mute, 
are also excepted, as, able, abler, ablest. 

* The Saxons formed their comparative by er or ere, ar or mre, er, or, 
ur, yr, and their superlative by ast, aste, est, ist, ost, list, yst. Now ar 
means before; hence the English words ere and erst. Thus, in Saxon, 
riht wisere means " righteous before,' 1 "just before,' 7 or "more than." The 
suffix is equivalent to the Latin pra, and the Hebrew preposition min, 
signifying also before ; the only difference being this, that what is a suffix 
to the Saxon adjective is in Hebrew a prefix to the consequent subject of 
comparison, and that in Latin the preposition following- the positive 
stands alone. 

Mr. Bosworth, in his " Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar," a work 
displaying sound philological principles, has remarked, that the Gothic 
superlative in itsa bears an obvious resemblance to some of the Greek 

superlatives, as, upttrrog, kuXXhttos, (Zpadarros. 



ETYMOLOGY. 75 

Euphony seems here to be generally consulted, and the 
ear may be allowed perhaps to furnish the best rule. 

Some form their superlative by adding most to the com- 
parative, as, nether, nethermost ; lower, lowermost ; under, 
undermost : others by adding most either to the positive or 
comparative, as, hind, hindmost or hindermost ; up, upmost 
or uppermost. From in we have inmost and innermost.* 

Besides this definite and direct kind of comparison, 
there is another, which may be termed indefinite or indirect, 
expressed by the intensive words too, very, exceedingly, &c. 
as, too good, very hard, exceedingly great. 

When the word very, or any other of the same import, 
is put before the positive, it is called by some writers the 
superlative of eminence, to distinguish it from the other 
superlative, which has been already mentioned, and is 
called the superlative of comparison. Thus, very hard is 
termed the superlatiye of eminence ; most hard, or hardest, 
the superlative of comparison. 

I have said that the comparative denotes simple excess, 
and the superlative the greatest. It is not, however, to be 
hence inferred, that the comparative may not be employed 
in expressing the same pre-eminence or inferiority with the 
superlative. If I say, " Of all acquirements virtue is the 
most valuable," I may also convey the same sentiment 
by saying, " Virtue is more valuable than every other ac- 
quirement. " If it be asked, what then is the difference 
between the comparative and superlative ? I answer, 

1st. That the superlative expresses the absolutely highest 
or lowest degree of the quality, as, when we say, " O God 
most high C or the greatest or least degree, in relation 
merely to the subjects of comparison, thus expressing a 
superiority of excess above the comparative, as when I say, 
" In estimating the worth of these human attainments, 
learning, prudence, and virtue, it cannot be denied that 
learning is valuable, that prudence is more valuable, but 
that virtue is the most valuable." The comparative ex- 

+ * Up and in are now used as adverbs and prepositions, 



76 ETYMOLOGY. 

presses merely simple excess, but never the highest or 
lowest degree of the quality. This distinction is, perhaps, 
the most precise, and the most worthy of attention. 

I observe, however, that the sentiment in the last exam- 
ple may be expressed by the comparative, but not simply, 
or by itself; thus, " Learning is valuable, prudence more 
valuable, and virtue more valuable still," the word still 
implying a continued gradation. Were this word sup- 
pressed, the sentence would imply that prudence and virtue 
are each more valuable than learning, but would assert no 
superiority of virtue to prudence. The same sentiment 
may likewise be expressed by combining the two first, and 
marking simply the excess of the third, thus, " virtue is 
better than both." 

2dly. When we express the superiority or inferiority of 
one of two things, or of two aggregates, we almost always 
use the comparative. Thus, speaking of Caesar and Cato, 
I say, " Cato was the more virtuous, Caesar the more elo- 
quent ;" or of two brothers, we say, " John was the elder." 

In such cases the superlative is sometimes employed, as, 
" the best of the two," instead of " the better of the two." 
The former phraseology, however, is more consonant to 
established usage, and is in every case to be preferred. 
" Whether is it easier to say, ' take up thy bed and walk/ 
or to say, ' thy sins are forgiven thee ?' " that is, which of 
the two is " easier," not " easiest," the simple excess of one 
thing above another being here denoted. 

3dly. When we use the superlative, we always compare 
one thing, or an aggregate number of things, with the 
class to which they belong, or to which we refer them ; 
whereas, when we use the comparative, except in the case 
just mentioned, the things compared either belong, or are 
conceived as belonging, to different classes, being placed in 
opposition to each other. Thus, in comparing Socrates, 
who was an Athenian, with the other Athenians, we say, 
" Socrates was the wisest of the Athenians ;" that is, " of," 
" out of," or " of the class of Athenians." Hence in 



ETYMOLOGY. 77 

Latin the superlative often takes the preposition ex (out 
of) to denote that,, the object compared belongs to the 
order of things with which it is compared ; the compara- 
tive very rarely. 

Now the same sentiment may be expressed by the com- 
parative ; but then the Athenians and Socrates, though 
belonging to one species, are conceived as mutually op- 
posed, and referred to different places, whereas the super- 
lative refers them to one common aggregate. Thus, if 
we employ the comparative, we say, " Socrates was wiser 
than any other Athenian." 

Agreeably to the observation now made, we cannot say, 
" Cicero was more eloquent than the Romans, 1 ' or " than 
any Roman ;" because Cicero was himself a Roman, one of 
the class with which he is compared, and could not there- 
fore be more eloquent than himself. As the objects com- 
pared belong, therefore, to one class, and are not two 
individuals, nor two aggregates, the comparative cannot 
be employed, unless by placing them in opposition, or 
referring them to different places, as " Cicero was more 
eloquent than any other Roman. 11 Here the word other 
denotes that opposition, that diversity of place or species, 
which, in all cases but the one already mentioned, is essen- 
tially implied in the use of the comparative. 

I have observed already, that when the superlative is 
employed, the things compared are referred to one aggre- 
gate ; and that when the comparative is used, they are 
contradistinguished by a different reference. This dis- 
tinction obtains uniformly, unless when we compare only 
two individuals, or two classes, both referred to one aggre- 
gate, as " the elder " of the Catos," "of these two nations 
(speaking of the Greeks and Romans) the latter were the 
more warlike. 11 In such examples as these, the compara- 
tive, while it retains its own distinctive character, denoting 
simple excess, partakes also of the nature of the super- 
lative, the objects compared being referred by the prepo- 
sition to one and the same aggregate. But as the superla- 



78 ETYMOLOGY. 

tive is always followed by of, and the comparative, in 
every case except the one now mentioned, followed by 
than, some writers say, " the eldest of the two," " the latter 
were the most warlike. - " This phraseology, however con- 
formable to the generally distinguished usage of the com- 
parative and superlative, is repugnant to the characteristic 
power of those degrees, by which one denotes simple ex- 
cess, while the other heightens or lessens the quality to its 
highest or lowest degree. 

From the preceding remarks will appear the impropriety 
of saying, " Jacob loved Joseph more than all his chil- 
dren.'"* Joseph being one of his children, the sentiment 
expressed involves an absurdity : it should be u more than 
all his other children." " In the beginning of the 16th 
century, Spain is said to have possessed a thousand 
merchant ships, a number probably far superior to that 
of any nation in Europe in that age." (Robertson's 
America.) It should be, " that of any other nation in 
Europe :" for, Spain being one of the European nations, 
she could not possess a number superior to her own. The 
comparative required the terms to be contrasted by the 

word other. 

" Adam 
The comeliest of men since born 
His sons. The fairest of her daughters Eve." — Milton. 

" Adam," the antecedent subject of comparison, is here 
improperly referred to the aggregate of "men since 
born." To this aggregate he cannot be said to belong, 
not having been " born," nor being reducible to the class 
of " his own sons." Eve also is referred to a species 
of which she was no part. In neither of these, compari- 
sons can the second term include the first; yet the pre- 
position refers them to one class. Such phraseologies 
as these, though not ungrammatical, involve an absurdity, 
and should therefore be dismissed. 

* This phraseology is Hebraistic — " more than all his children" is the 
literal translation of the original, VOD'^/p prae omnibus filiis, seu, 
magis omnibus filiis suis. 



ETYMOLOGY. 79 

Adjectives whose signification does not admit intension 
or remission cannot be compared. Among these are 
to be reckoned, 1st, All words expressive of figure, as 
circular, square, triangular, perpendicular, straight; for 
it is obvious, that if a body or figure be triangular, or 
square, or circular, it cannot be more or less so. It is 
either circular or not circular ; triangular, or not trian- 
gular ; straight, or not straight. If the affirmative be 
the case, gradation from more or less, or conversely, is 
impossible; if the negative be true, then the attributes 
denoted by these adjectives do not belong to it ; and 
therefore the epithets circular, triangular, straight, &c. 
are inapplicable. Hence such expressions as these, w place 
the staff more erect," " make the field more triangular," are 
highly improper. We should say, " set the staff erect," 
" make the field triangular." 

2dly, All adjectives whose signification, in their simple 
form, implies the highest or lowest possible degree, admit 
not comparison, as, chief, supreme, universal, perfect,. ex- 
treme, &c. Hume, speaking of enthusiasm, says, (Essays, 
vol. i. p. 72.) " it begets the most extreme resolutions." 
Extreme implies the farthest, or the greatest possible, 
and cannot admit intension. 

I am aware that usage may be pleaded in favour of 
" more and most universal, more and most perfect.'''' This 
usage, however, is not such as will sanction the former 
of these phraseologies ; for good writers generally avoid 
it. Besides, there is no necessity for resorting to this 
mode of expression, as we have an attributive appropriate 
to the idea intended : thus, instead of saying, " Literature 
is more universal in England than America," we should 
say, " Literature is more general." It is almost unneces- 
sary to observe, that literature in England is either uni- 
versal, or it is not: if the former be true, it cannot be 
more than universal ; if the latter, the term is inappli- 
cable. The word general does not comprise the whole; 
it admits intension and remission : the adjective universal 



80 ETYMOLOGY. 

implies totality. A general rule admits exceptions; a 
universal rule embraces every particular. 

The expression "more perfect" is, in strictness of 
speech, equally exceptionable ; usage, however, has given 
it a sanction which we dare hardly controvert. It has 
been proposed, indeed, to avoid this and similar impro- 
prieties, by giving the phraseology a negative, or indirect 
form. Thus, instead of saying, " A time-keeper is a more 
perfect machine than a watch," it has been proposed to 
say, " A time-keeper is a less imperfect machine than a 
watch ." This phraseology is logically correct, perfection 
being predicable of neither the one thing nor the other ; 
it might likewise, in many cases, be adopted with pro- 
priety. In the language of passion, however, and in 
the colourings of imagination, such expressions would 
be exanimate and intolerable. A lover, expatiating with 
rapture on the beauty and perfection of his mistress, 
would hardly call her, " the least imperfect of her sex" 

In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found 
of adjectives being compared whose signification admits 
neither intension nor remission. It would be easy to 
assign several reasons for this, did the discussion belong 
to the province of the grammarian.* Suffice it to say, 
that such phraseologies should never be admitted where 
the language will furnish correct, and equally apposite, 
expressions. 

I observe also, that as those adjectives whose signifi- 
cation cannot be heightened or lessened admit not compa- 
rison, so, for the same reason, they exclude all intensive 
words. The expressions, 50 universal, so extreme, and 
such like, are therefore improper. The former is indeed 
common enough ; but it is easy to see, as it has been 
already remarked, that whatever is universal cannot be 
increased or diminished ; and that what is less than uni- 

* See a valuable little volume on English Grammar, by Mr. Grant. 
The " Institutes of Latin Grammar," by the same author, we would re- 
commend to the attention of every classical student. 



ETYMOLOGY. 81 

versal, cannot be characterized by that epithet. The 
phrase so universal implies a gradation in universality, 
and that something is less so than another ; which is 
evidently impossible. 

It has been questioned, whether prior, superior, ulte- 
rior, exterior, and several others, which have the form 
of the Latin comparative, should be deemed comparatives. 
I am inclined to think, they ought not, for these reasons : 
1st, They have not the form of the English comparative; 
2dly, They are never followed by than, which uniformly 
accompanies the English comparative, when the subjects 
are opposed to each other, or referred to different classes ; 
3dly, It is not to be conceived, that every adjective, which 
implies comparison, is therefore a comparative or super- 
lative, otherwise preferable (better than), previous (prior 
to), might be deemed comparatives ; 4thly, Many of these 
have truly a positive meaning, not implying an excess of 
the quality, but merely the quality, as opposed to its con- 
trary. The interior means simply the inside, as opposed 
to the exterior or outside ; the anterior s " the one before," 
opposed to posterior, " the one behind."" 

I dismiss this article with observing, that the signi- 
fication of the positive is sometimes lessened by the ter- 
mination ish ; as, white, whitish ; black, blackish. John- 
son remarks, that the adjective in this form may be con- 
sidered as in a state of comparison ; it may properly be 
called a diminutive. 



82 ETYMOLOGY, 



CHAPTER V. 



OF THE VERB. 



A verb has been defined to be " that part of speech, 
which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer ;" or more cor- 
rectly, " that part of speech, which predicates some action, 
passion, or state of its subject," as, " I strike," " I am 
wounded," " I stand." Its essence consists in affirmation, 
and by this property it is distinguished from every other 
part of speech. The adjective expresses an accident, 
quality, or property of a thing in concreto ; that is, when 
joined to the name of a substance, it expresses that sub- 
stance, as accompanied by some attribute : in other words, 
it limits a generic name, confining it to that part of the 
kind, which possesses the character, which the attributive 
specifies ; but it affirms nothing. Thus, if we say, " a 
wise man? which is equivalent to " a man with," or "join 
wisdom," there is no affirmation ; an individual is singled 
from a species, under the character of wisdom, but nothing 
is asserted of this individual. If we say, " the man is 
wise," there is something affirmed of the man, and the 
affirmation is expressed by is. If the attribute and the 
assertion be combined in the expression, as in Latin vir 
sapit, it is obvious that the essence of the verb consists, 
not in denoting the attribute wisdom, but in affirming 
that quality, as belonging to the subject ; for, if you can- 
cel the assertion, the verb is immediately converted into 
an adjective, and the expression becomes vir sapiens, a 
wise man. 

The simplest of all verbs is that which the Greeks call 
a verb of existence, namely, the verb to be. This verb 



ETYMOLOGY. 83 

frequently denotes pure affirmation, as, " God is good," 
where the verb, or copula, as it has been termed, serves to 
predicate of the Deity, the attribute denoted by the fol- 
lowing word. Hence, as it expresses mere affirmation, 
the Latins call it a substantive verb, in contradistinction 
to those verbs which, with an attribute, denote assertion, 
and were called by some grammarians adjective verbs. 

Sometimes it predicates pure or absolute existence, as, 
" God is," that is, " God exists." In the following ex- 
ample it occurs in both senses. " We believe that thou 
art, and that thou art the rewarder of them who diligently 
seek thee." 

As nouns denote the subjects of our discourse, so verbs 
predicate their accidents, or properties. The former are 
the names of things, the latter what we say concerning 
them. These two, therefore, must be the only essential 
parts of speech ; for to mental communication nothing else 
can be indispensably requisite, than to name the subject of 
our thoughts, and to express our sentiments of its attri- 
butes or properties. And, as the verb essentially ex- 
presses affirmation, without which there could be no com- 
munication of sentiment, it has been hence considered as 
the principal part of speech, and was therefore called, by 
the ancient grammarians, verb, or the word, by way of 
eminence. The noun, however, is unquestionably of 
earlier origin. To assign names to surrounding objects 
would be a matter of the first necessity : the next step 
would be to express their most common actions, or states 
of being. This indeed is the order of nature — the pro- 
gress of intellect. 

Mr. Tooke observes, that " the verb does not imply 
any assertion, and that no single word can." " Till one 
single thing," says he, " can be found to be a couple, one 
single word cannot make an assertion or affirmation ; for 
there is joining in that operation, and there can be no 
junction of one thing." This theory he illustrates by the 
tense ibo, which he resolves thus : 

g 2 



84 ETYMOLOGY. 

English Hi* Wol Ich 

Latin I Vol O 

Greek I BouA Ew. 

The first of each triad are the simple verbs, equivalent 
to go. The second are the verbs Wol, Vol, BouX, de- 
noting will. The third are the pronouns of the first per- 
son. Whatever opinion may be formed respecting the 
truth of this analysis, its ingenuity will not be questioned. 
There are two objections, however, by which its justness 
may possibly be controverted. The first is, if the per- 
sonal pronouns are contained, as Mr. Tooke says, in the 
Greek and Latin terminations of the three persons of their 
verbs, why is the pronoun repeated with the verb? If 
the o in volo be an abbreviated suffix for ego, why do we 
redundantly say ego volo? Now, in answer to this ob- 
jection, it might be observed, were we disposed to indulge 
in mere hypothesis, that the involution of the pronoun 
may have eluded the attention of the Latins ; or, if this 
explanation should be deemed too improbable, it may be 
supposed that usage, against whose decree there is no ap- 
peal, may have established the repetition of the pronoun 
at the expense of strict propriety. One thing particularly 
deserves attention, that the pronoun was seldom or never 
used, unless in cases where emphasis was implied, or an 
antithesis of persons was to be strongly marked. But 
without resorting to conjectures, which may be deemed 
vague and unsatisfactory, we may appeal to a fact which 
is decisive of the point in question. I have already ob- 
served, that in the Hebrew language we can distinctly 
mark the pronouns suffixed to the verb ; yet we find the 
Hebrew writers repeating the pronouns even in cases 
where no emphasis is intended. Thus, in Gen. xlviii. 22. 
Ve-ani nathatti, " and I have given ;" Job xix. 25. Ve 
ani iadahgti, " and I knew ;" Deut. ix. 2. attah iadahgh- 

* I, hi, hie, " to go," he considers to be from i-evui, the Greek verb 
and hence to be derived the Latin verb I-re, " to go," " to hie." 



ETYMOLOGY. 85 

ta, ve-atta shamahgh ta, " thou knowest, and thou hast 
heard." In these examples, the pronoun is both incor- 
porated with the verb and repeated by itself. Whatever 
may be the abstract propriety of this phraseology, its 
existence in Hebrew is sufficient to obviate the objection 
proposed. 

Again, it may be urged, if the pronoun ego be suf- 
fixed to the verb, why do not all the tenses in the first 
person singular end in o? This second objection may 
also be partly, if not entirely, removed. The Latin 
language appears to be a commixture of Greek and one of 
the northern languages. This commixture will account 
for the first person singular sometimes ending in o, in 
imitation of the Greeks, and at other times in m, in imita- 
tion of the Celts. The present tense of the Gaelic, a 
dialect of the Celtic, proceeds thus : sgriobh-aim, " I 
write," sgriobh-air, sgriobh-aidh, sgriobh-amoid, sgriobh- 
aoidhesi, sgriob-aidsion. Here, as Whiter observes, we 
have something resembling the Latin verb scribo : and 
it is to be remarked, that the first person singular ends 
in m 9 which the Romans most probably adopted as one 
of their verbal terminations. And could we prosecute 
the inquiry, and investigate the structure of the Greek 
and Celtic tenses themselves, we should doubtless find, 
that they involve, along with the radical word, one or 
more terms expressing the accessary ideas of action, pas- 
sion, state, person, time, and so forth. The same theory, 
we are persuaded, may be applied to all languages in 
which the tenses are formed by variety of termination. 

Nothing, I conceive, can be more evident, than that the 
inflexions of nouns and verbs, how inexplicable soever 
they may now prove, were not originally the result of 
systematic art, but were separate terms, significant of 
the circumstances intended, and afterwards, by celerity 
of pronunciation, coalesced with the words of which they 
now form the terminations. 

It has been observed, that the essence of the verb 



86 ETYMOLOGY. 

consists in affirmation. This theory, I have remarked, 
is controverted by Mr. Tooke. It must be obvious, how- 
ever, from the preceding observations, that the differ- 
ence between the opinion of this eminent philologist, and 
that which is here delivered, is more apparent than real. 
For Mr. Tooke will not deny, that an affirmation is implied 
in ibo ; he merely observes, that every assertion requires 
" a couple of terms." Now it is of little moment to the 
point in question whether the two terms be incorporated 
in one, as in lego, or remain separate, as " I read." In 
either case the verb affirms something of its nominative, 
whether that nominative appear in a simple, or in a com- 
pound state. Sometimes the affirmation is expressed by a 
separate and appropriate sign, as Me est dives, " he is 
rich :" and the verb of existence (to be) is supposed, 
by several critics and philologists, to have been coeval 
with the earliest infancy of language. In English, the 
affirmation, and also the action, are frequently denoted, 
simply by the junction of the name of the attribute with 
the nominative of the subject, whether noun or pronoun. 
Thus, if we say, " my will," " the children's will," there is 
no affirmation implied, and the term will is considered 
as a mere name. But if we say, " I will," " the children 
will," it becomes invested with a different character, and 
affirms the volition to belong to the subject. Thus also, 
" the hero's might," " the hero might," " my ken" (my 
knowledge or ability), " I ken," / can, or / am able ; 
" my love," " I love." Mr. Tooke observes, that when 
we say " I love," there is an ellipsis of the word 
do. This appears to me a probable opinion, though 
not entirely unobjectionable. For though we find the 
auxiliary more frequently used in old English than in 
modern compositions, yet it does not occur so frequently 
as, according to this hypothesis, we should naturally 
expect. Mr. Tooke indeed admits the fact ; but observes, 
that Chaucer had less occasion to use it, because in his 
time the distinguishing terminations of the verb still re- 



ETYMOLOGY. 87 

mained, though they were not constantly employed. Now 
I find, as Mr. Tyrwhit remarks, that Chaucer seldom 
uses the word do as an auxiliary, even in those cases 
where the verb and the noun are identical. This cir- 
cumstance might lead us to infer that the English present 
was derived from the Saxon, by dropping the termina- 
tion, as ic lujige, I love; the affirmation and the action 
being sufficiently obvious from the construction, and that 
it was originally optional to say either " I love," or 
" I do love." Be that as it may, the assertion expressed 
by " I do," equivalent to " I act," appears clearly to 
be signified by the junction of the nominative pronoun 
with the sign of action. Whether a note of affirmation 
was at first separately employed, and afterwards involv- 
ed in the verbal termination, or whether the affirmation 
be merely inferred and not signified, this is certain, that it 
is by the verb, and the verb only, that we can express 
affirmation. 

As every subject of discourse must be spoken of as 
either doing or suffering something, either acting or acted 
upon ; or as neither doing nor suffering ; hence verbs 
have been divided by all grammarians into active, passive, 
and neuter. 

The verb active denotes that the subject of discourse 
is doing something, as, I write ; the passive verb, that 
the subject suffers, or is acted upon, as, the book is burned ; 
and the neuter denotes neither the one nor the other, 
but expresses merely the state, posture, or condition of 
the subject, as unaffected by any thing else, as, / sit, I 
sleep, I stand. 

Action, energy, or motion may either be confined to 
the agent, or pass from him to something extrinsic. 
Hence active verbs have been divided into transitive and 
intransitive. An active transitive verb denotes that kind 
of action by which the agent affects something foreign 
to himself, or which passes from the agent to something 
without him, as, to beat a drum, to whip a horse, to kill a 



88 ETYMOLOGY. 

dog. Beat, whip, kill, are active transitive verbs ; and it 
is the characteristic of these verbs that they admit a noun 
after them, denoting the subject of the action. 

An active intransitive verb denotes that species of action 
or energy, which passes not from the agent to any thing 
else ; that is, it expresses what has been termed immanent 
energy. Hence an intransitive verb does not admit a 
noun after it, there being no extrinsic subject or object 
affected by the action. Thus, I run, I walk, the horse 
gal/ops, are examples of active intransitive verbs.* 

Webster, in his Dissertations on the English Language, 
delivers it as his opinion, that the division of verbs into 
active, passive, and neuter is incorrect ; and that the only 
accurate distribution is into transitive and intransitive. 
" Is not a man,' 1 says he, "passive in hearing? yet hear- 
ing is called an active verb." 

It is doubtless true, that to hear, and many other verbs, 
commonly called active, denote chiefly, perhaps, the effect 
of an extrinsic or foreign act. But whether we view the 
matter as a question either in metaphysics or in grammar, 
we shall perceive but little impropriety in adopting the 
common distinction. For, though the verb to hear de- 
notes, perhaps, chiefly, that a certain impression is made 
on the mind through the auditory organ, yet even here 
the mind is not entirely passive, as, were this the place for 
such a discussion, it would be easy to prove. / see, I 
hear, I feel, I perceive, denote not only the sensation in 
which we are passive, but also a perception, to which 
the consent or activity of the mind is unquestionably 
essential. Hence these verbs have, in all languages, been 
denominated active. But if the term transitive be the 
only correct name, it may be asked, why does Mr. Web- 
ster call this verb by that appellation ? He would answer, 
I doubt not, "because something passes from the agent to 

* Intransitive verbs sometimes are used transitively, as, when we say, 
"to walk the horse," " to dance the child." They also admit a noun of 
their own signification, as, " to run a race." 



ETYMOLOGY. 89 

something else." What then is that something which 
passes ? I am afraid Mr. Webster would have difficulty 
in answering this question, so as to justify the term trans- 
itive, without admitting the verb to be active. For, if 
it be not an act, an energy, or some operation of the 
mind, what is it, or how can it pass from one to another ? 
The truth is, this objection of Mr. Webster to the term 
active in such cases, is founded neither on metaphysical 
nor grammatical principles ; for, by an active transitive 
verb is meant, that which admits a noun as its regimen ; 
and, for the purposes of grammar, this name is sufficiently 
correct. If the point in question be metaphysically con- 
sidered, it would be easy to demonstrate that, though in 
sensation the mind be passive, in perception it is active. 

I would here observe, in passing, that there are many 
verbs neuter and intransitive, which, followed by a prepo- 
sition, may be truly considered as active transitive verbs. 
These have been denominated, by the learned Dr. Camp- 
bell, compound active verbs. To laugh, for example, is a 
neuter verb ; it cannot therefore admit a passive voice, as, 
" / am laughed." To laugh at may be considered as 
an active transitive verb ; for it not only admits an ob- 
jective case after it in the active voice, but is likewise 
construed as a passive verb, as, " / am laughed at" Here 
an obvious analogy obtains between these two and the 
verbs rideo, derideo, in Latin; the former of which is 
a neuter, and the latter an active verb. Nor, as the same 
ingenious writer observes, does it matter whether the 
preposition be prefixed to the simple verb, as in Latin, in 
order to form the active verb, or be put after, and detached, 
as is the case in English. The only grammatical criterion 
in our language between an active and a neuter verb is 
this : if the verb admits an objective case after it, either 
with or without a preposition, to express the subject or 
object of the energy, the verb may be grammatically con- 
sidered as a compound active verb ; for thus construed it 
has a passive voice. If the verb does not thus admit an 



90 ETYMOLOGY. 

objective case, it must be considered grammatically as 
neuter or intransitive, and has no passive voice. To smile 
is a neuter verb ; it cannot, therefore, be followed by an 
objective case, nor be construed as a passive verb. We 
cannot say, she smiled him, or he was smiled. To smile on, 
according to the principle now proposed, is a compound 
active verb ; we therefore say, she smiled on him. He ivas 
smiled on by Fortune in every undertaking* 

As all things exist in time, and whatever is predicable 
of any subject must be predicated as either past, present, 
or future, every action, energy, or state of being, coming 
under one or other of these predicaments, hence arises the 
utility of tenses, to express the times, or relative order of 
their existence. In regard to the number of these tenses,-[- 
necessary to render a language complete, grammarians 
have been somewhat divided in opinion. 

In our language we have two simple tenses, the present 
and the preter perfect. J The latter is generally formed 
by adding d or ed to the present, as, love, loved ; fear, 

* Conformably to general opinion I here consider the English language 
as having a passive voice. How far this opinion is well founded shall be 
the subject of future inquiry. 

-|- Mr. Bosworth seems to think, that the word tense is derived from 
the Latin tensus, " used to denote that extension or inflexion of the word, 
by which difference in time is implied, or difference in action is signified." 
I am rather inclined to consider it as derived from the French terns or 
temps, and that from tempus. 

% " Some," says Dr. Beattie, " will not allow any thing to be a tense, 
but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation with time ; for, 
that those parts of the verb are not properly called tenses, which assume 
that appearance, by means of auxiliary words. At this rate, in English, 
we should have two tenses only, the present and the past in the active 
verb, and in the passive no tenses at all. But this is a needless nicety ; 
and, if adopted, would introduce confusion into the grammatical art. If 
amaveram be a tense, why should not amatus fueram ? If I heard be a 
tense, I did hear, I have heard, and J shall hear, must be equally entitled 
to that appellation." 

How simplicity can introduce confusion I am unable to comprehend, 
unless we are to affirm that the introduction of Greek and Latin names, 
to express nonentities in our language, is necessary to illustrate the gram- 



ETYMOLOGY. 91 

feared. That the suffix here is a contraction for did, as 
Mr. Tooke supposes, I can easily imagine ; thus, fear, 
fear-did, feared, or did fear ; but the question returns, 

mar, and simplify the study of the language to the English scholar. But 
the author's theory seems at variance with itself. He admits, that " we 
have no cases in English, except the addition of s in the genitive ;" whence 
we may infer, that he considers inflexion as essential to a case. Now, if 
those only be cases, which are formed by inflexion, those only should, 
grammatically, be deemed tenses, which are formed in the same manner. 
When he asks, therefore, if amaveram be a tense, why should not amatus 
fueram be a tense also ? the answer on his own principles is sufficiently 
obvious, namely, because the one is formed by inflexion, the other by 
combination. And, I would ask, if king's be a genitive case, why, ac- 
cording to his theory, is not of a king entitled to the same appellation ? 
I apprehend the answer he must give, consistently with his opinion re- 
specting cases, will sufficiently explain why amaveram, and I heard, are 
tenses, while amatus fueram, and I had heard, are not. 

Nay further, if it be needless nicety to admit those only as tenses, 
which are formed by inflexion, is it not equally a needless nicety to admit 
those cases only, which are formed by varying the termination ? And if 
confusion be introduced by denying I had heard to be a tense, why does 
not the learned author simplify the doctrine of English nouns, by giving 
them six cases, a king, of a king, to or for a king, a king, O king, with, 
from, in, or by a king ? This surely would be to perplex, not to simplify. 
In short, the inconsistency of those grammarians, who deny that to be a 
case, which is not formed by inflexion, yet would load us with moods 
and tenses, not formed by change of termination, is so palpable, as to 
require neither illustration nor argument to expose it. If these authors 
would admit, that we have as many cases in English, as there exist rela- 
tions expressed by prepositions, then, indeed, though they might over- 
whelm us with the number, we should at least acknowledge the consist- 
ency of their theory. But to adopt the principle of inflexion in one case, 
and reject it in another, precisely parallel, involves an inconsistency which 
must excite amazement. Nil fuit sic unquam impar sibi. Why do not 
these gentlemen favour us with a dual number, with a middle voice, and 
with an optative mood ? Nay, as they are so fond of tenses, as to lament 
that we rob them of all but two, why do they not enrich us with a first 
and second aorist, and a paulo post future ? and, if this should not suffice, 
they will find in Hebrew a rich supply of verbal forms. We should then 
have kal and niphhal, pihhel and pyhhal,hiphhil and hophhal,hithpahhel 
and hothpahhel, and numerous other species and designations. What a 
wonderful acquisition this would be to our stock of moods, tenses, and 
voices ! One 



92 ETYMOLOGY. 

whence comes the termination ed in doed 5 from which did 
itself is contracted ? This query seems to have escaped 
the attention of the learned author. * 

One of these grammarians, indeed, reverencing the old maxim est modus 
in rebus, observes, that " it is necessary to set bounds to this business, so 
as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple 
and perspicuous.'' This is so far good ; because, though it vindicates 
the impropriety, it modestly would confine it within decent bounds. But 
surely it cannot be necessary to remind this writer, that when the bound- 
ary between right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, is once passed, 
it is extremely difficult to prescribe limits to the transgression ; and that 
arbitrary distinctions, resting on no other foundation than prejudice or 
fashion, must ever be vague, questionable, and capricious. These are 
truths of which, I am persuaded, the author to whom I allude needs not 
to be reminded. But it may be necessary to impress on his attention 
another truth equally incontestable, that no authority, how respectable 
soever, can sanction inconsistency ; and that great names, though they 
may be honoured by ignorance and credulity with the most obsequious 
homage, will never pass with the intelligent reader, either for demonstra- 
tion or for argument. This author, in defence of his theory of cases and 
tenses, observes, " that the proper form of a tense, in the Greek and Latin 
languages, is certainly that which it has in the grammars of these lan- 
guages." On what evidence is this assumption founded? Here is exhi- 
bited a petitio principii, too palpable to escape the detection of the most 
inattentive reader. He proceeds : " But in the Greek and Latin gram- 
mars we uniformly find that some of the tenses are formed by variations 
of the principal verb, and others by the addition of helping verbs." It is 
answered that the admission of these forms in Greek and Latin grammars, 
is a question of mere expediency, and nowise affects the doctrine for 
which we contend, any more than the admission of six cases in all the 
Latin declensions affects the doctrine of cases; though in no one declen- 
sion have all the cases dissimilar terminations. This position it would be 



* Mr. Gilchrist, in his " Philosophic Etymology," represents the ter- 
minations ath, eth, ad, ed, et, en, an, as conjunctives, equivalent to the 
sign +, denoting add, ovjoin (see p. 162). In another part of the same 
work, he considers did to be do doubled, as dedi from the Latin do, which 
he believes to be the very same word with our do. Repetition, he ob- 
serves, is a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we have do, 
do-ed, dede, did, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and fur- 
nishes a probable account of the origin of the word did, which he re- 
marks was formerly spelled dede. 






ETYMOLOGY. 93 

Actions and states of being may be predicated as either 
certain or contingent, free or necessary, possible or im- 
possible, obligatory or optional ; in short, as they may 

easy to demonstrate : it would be easy likewise to show why, notwith- 
standing this occasional identity of termination, six cases are admitted 
in all the declensions; but the subject is foreign to our present purpose. 
It is important, however, to observe, what has escaped the notice of the 
author, that the principle, on which the admission just mentioned may be 
expedient in a Latin grammar, has no existence whatever in the English 
language. 

" It is therefore," he continues, " indisputable, that the principal,, or 
the participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense in the Greek 
and Latin languages." This, as I have remarked, is a palpable petitio 
principii. It is to say, that because amatus fueram is a tense, there- 
fore, " I had been loved" is a tense also. The author forgets, that the 
premises must be true, to render the conclusion legitimate. He forgets, 
that a circular argument is a mere sophism, because it assumes as true 
what it is intended to prove. Whether amatus fueram be or be not a 
tense, is the very point in question ; and so far am I from admitting the 
affirmative as unquestionable, that I contend, it has no more claim to the 
designation of tense, than igopm rirvtpus — no more claim than amandum 
est mihi, amari oportet, or amandus sum, have to be called moods. 
Here I must request the reader to bear in mind the necessary distinction 
between the grammar of a language, and its capacity of expression. 

In answer to the objection of inconsistency, in admitting tenses where 
there is no inflexion, yet rejecting cases where there is no change of 
termination, the author says, " that such a mode of declension cannot 
apply to our language." But why can it not apply ? Why not give as 
English cases, to a king, of a king, from a king, with a king, by a king, 
at a king, about a king, &c. &c. ? The mode is certainly applicable, 
whatever may be the consequences of that application. A case surely is 
as easily formed by a noun and preposition, as a tense by a participle 
and auxiliary. But, the author observes, " the English language would 
then have a much greater number of cases than the Greek and Latin 
languages." And why not ? Is the number of cases in English, or any 
other language, to be limited by the number in Greek or Latin ? or does 
the author mean to say, that there is any peculiar propriety in the num- 
ber five or six ? The author, to be consistent with himself, ought to ac- 
knowledge as many cases as there are prepositions to be found in the 
English language. This, it may be said, would encumber our grammar, 
and embarrass the learner. This is, indeed, an argument against the ex- 
pediency of the application, but not against the practicability of the prin- 
ciple in question. Besides, it may be asked, why does the author con- 



94 ETYMOLOGY. 

take place in a variety of ways, they may be spoken 
of, as diversified in their modes of production. Hence 
arises another accident of verbs, called a mood, expressing 
the mode or manner of existence. These modes are, in 
some languages, partly expressed by inflexions, partly by 
auxiliary verbs, or words significant of the modal diver- 
sity. In English there is only one mood, namely, the 
indicative. The Greeks and Romans expressed by in- 
flexions the most common modes of action or existence, 
as conditionality, power, contingency, certainty, liberty, 
and duty. In our language they are denoted by auxiliary 
verbs. 

The English verb has only one voice, namely, the act- 
ive. Dr. Lowth, and most other grammarians, have as- 
fine his love of simplification to cases ? Why not extend it to tenses 
also ? Why maintain, that inflexion only makes a case, and that a tense 
is formed without inflexion ? Why dismiss one encumbrance, and 
admit another? 

The author observes, that " from grammarians, who form their ideas 
and make their decisions respecting this part of grammar, on the prin- 
ciples and construction of languages, which in these points do not suit 
the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may 
naturally expect grammatical schemes that are neither perspicuous nor 
consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than inform the learner." 
Had I been reprehending the author's own practice, I should have em- 
ployed nearly the same language. How these observations, certainly 
judicious and correct, can be reconciled with the doctrine of the writer 
himself, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. His ideas of consistency and 
simplicity are to me incomprehensible. He rejects prepositional cases 
for the sake of simplicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, 
equally foreign to the genius of our language, in order to avoid perr 
plexity. Surely this is not a " consistent scheme." Nay, he tells us, 
" that on the principle of imitating other languages in names and forms 
(I beseech the reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in 
nature and idiom, we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a 
variety of cases for English substantives : but," he adds, " this variety 
does not at all correspond with the idiom of our language." After this 
observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary. 

I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author's doctrine 
merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, however, to objec- 



ETYMOLOGY. 95 

signed it two voices, active and passive. Lowth has, in 
this instance, not only violated the simplicity of our lan- 
guage, but has also advanced an opinion inconsistent with 
his own principles. For, if he has j ustly excluded from the 
number of cases in nouns, and moods in verbs, those which 
are not formed by inflexion, but by the addition of prepo- 
sitions and auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for reject- 
ing a passive voice, if it be not formed by variety of ter- 
mination. Were I to ask him why he denies from a king 
to be an ablative case, or i" may love to be the potential 
mood, he would answer, and very truly, that those only 
can be justly regarded as cases or moods which, by a dif- 
ferent form of the noun or verb, express a different rela- 
tion or a different mode of existence. If this answer be 
satisfactory, there can be no good reason for assigning to 

tions of a more serious nature ; and were I not apprehensive that I have 
already exhausted the patience of the reader, I should now proceed to 
state these objections. There is one observation, however, which I feel 
it necessary to make. The author remarks, that to take the tenses as 
they are commonly received, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and 
their differences, " is a much more useful exercise, as well as a more 
proper, for a work of this kind, than to raise, as might be easily raised, 
new theories on the subject." If the author by this intends to insinuate 
that our doctrine is new, he errs egregiously. For Wallis, one of the 
oldest, and certainly one of the best of our English grammarians^ duly 
attentive to the simplicity of that language whose grammar he was ex- 
hibiting, assigned only two tenses to the English verb. He says, Nos 
duo tantum habemus tempora, Prasens et Prateritum ; and on this sim- 
ple principle his explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to his 
grammar, he censures his few predecessors for violating the simplicity of 
the English language, by the introduction of names and rules foreign to 
the English idiom. Cur hujusmodi casuum, generum, modorum, tempo- 
rumque fictam et ineptam plane congeriem introducamus citra omnem ne- 
cessitatem, aut in ipsa lingua fundamentum, nulla ratio suadet. And so 
little was he aware that the introduction of technical names for things 
which have no existence, facilitates the acquisition of any art or science, 
that he affirms it in regard to the subject before us to be the cause of 
great confusion and perplexity. Qua (inutilia pracepta) a lingua nostra 
sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem pariwnt, 
quam explicationi inscrviunt. 



96 ETYMOLOGY. 

our language a passive voice, when that voice is formed, 
not by inflexion, but by an auxiliary verb. Doceor is 
truly a passive voice; but / am taught cannot, without 
impropriety, be considered as such. Besides, as it is justly 
observed by Dr. Ash, our author, when he parses the 
clause " I am well pleased," tells us that am is the in- 
dicative mood, present tense, of the verb to be ; and 
pleased, the passive participle of the verb to please. Now, 
in parsing, every word should be considered as a dis- 
tinct part of speech : whether, therefore, we admit pleased 
to be a passive participle or not (for this point I shall af- 
terwards examine), it is obvious that on the principle now 
laid down, and acknowledged by Dr. Lowth, am pleased 
is not a present passive, nor has the author himself parsed 
it in this manner. Into such inconsistencies do our gram- 
marians run, from a propensity to force the grammar of 
our language into a conformity with the structure of 
Greek and Latin. 

The same reasoning will also account for my assigning 
to English verbs no more than two tenses and one mood. 
For, if we consider the matter, not metaphysically, but 
grammatically, and regard those only as moods which are 
diversified by inflexion (and, as Lowth himself observes, as 
far as grammar is concerned, there can be no others), we 
find that our language has only one mood and two tenses. 

This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is very generally 
admitted. For, though the Greeks and Romans express- 
ed the different relations by variety of inflexion, which 
they termed cases, it does not follow that we are to ac- 
knowledge the same number of cases as they had, when 
these relations are expressed in English, not by inflexions, 
but by prepositions or words significant of these relations. 
The Latins would not have acknowledged absque fructu, 
without fruit, as forming a seventh case, though they ac- 
knowledged fructu, by fruit, as making an ablative or 
sixth case. And why ? because the latter only was formed 



ETYMOLOGY. 97 

by inflexion. For this reason, I consider giving the name 
of dative case to the combination of words to a king, or of 
ablative case to the expression from a king, to be a pal- 
pable impropriety. Our language knows no such cases ; 
nor would an Englishman, unacquainted with Greek or 
Latin, ever dream of these cases, though perfectly master 
of his own language. 

In the same manner it may be asked, what could lead 
him to distinguish a diversity of moods, or a plurality of 
voices, where there is no variety of termination to discri- 
minate them ? The distinction of circumstances, respect- 
ing the modes of existence, he expresses by words signi- 
ficant of these accidents ; but he would no more dream of 
giving these forms of expression the name of moods, than 
he would be disposed to call from a king by the name of 
casus ablativus, or permit me to go the first person sin- 
gular of the imperative mood. If, indeed, he were some- 
what acquainted with Latin, he might, in the true spirit 
of modern grammarians, contend that let me go, or permit 
me to go, is truly the first person singular of the impera- 
tive mood ; assigning as a reason for this assertion, that 
such is the designation of earn in Latin. With the most 
correct knowledge, however, of his own language only, he 
could never be seduced into this absurdity. A little re- 
flection indeed might teach him, that even earn in Latin is 
an elliptical expression for sine ut earn, the word earn itself 
denoting neither entreaty nor command. 

In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our lan- 
guage has all the tenses which are to be found in Greek 
and Latin, because, by the aid of auxiliaries and defini- 
tives, we contrive to express what they denoted by one 
word, as to contend that we have a potential, an optative 
or imperative mood, or a passive voice ; because by aux- 
iliaries or variety of arrangement we can express the cir- 
cumstances of power, liberty, duty, passion, &c. No 
grammarian has yet gone so far as to affirm that we have 



98 ETYMOLOGY, 

in English a paulo post future, because our language, by 
definitives or auxiliaries, is capable of expressing that 
time. Or, what should we think of that person's discern- 
ment, who should contend that the Latins had an optative 
mood because utinam legeres signifies " I wish you would 
read." It is equally absurd to say that we have an im- 
perfect, preter pluperfect, or future tenses ; or that we 
have all the Greek varieties of mood, and two voices, be- 
cause by the aid of auxiliary words and definitive terms 
we contrive to express these accidents, times, or states of 
being. I consider, therefore, that we have no more cases, 
moods, tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its 
grammar, not its capacity of expression, is concerned, 
than we have variety of termination to denote these dif- 
ferent accessary ideas. 

As the terminations of verbs in most languages are 
varied by tense and mood, so are they also varied accord- 
ing as the subject is of the first, second, or third person. 
Thus, in the only two tenses that we have in English, 
namely, the present and the preterperfect tenses, the second 
person singular of each is formed from the first, by add- 
ing st or est, as, / love, thou lovest ; i" loved, thou lovedst ; 
and the third person singular of the present is formed by 
adding s, or the syllable eth or th 9 to the first, as, love, 
loves, or loveth ; read, reads, or readeth. These are the 
only variations which our verbs admit, in concordance 
with the person of the nominative singular. The three 
persons plural are always the same with the first person 
singular. 

Before I proceed to the conjugation of verbs in general, 
I shall first explain the manner in which the auxiliaries 
are conjugated. Of these the most extensively useful is 
the verb to be, denoting simple affirmation, or expressing 
existence. The next is that which signifies action, namely, 
the verb to do. The third is the verb to have, implying 
possession. The others are, shall, will, may, can, &c. I 
begin with the verb to be. 



ETYMOLOGY. 99 

Indicative Mood. 

Present Tense, 
*Sing. I am Thou art He, she, or it is 

Plur. We are Ye or you are They are. 

Preterite. 
Sing. I was Thou wast-f- He was 

Plur. We were Ye or you were They were. 

Imperfect Conditional. 
Sing. I were Thou wert He were 

Plur. We were Ye or you were They were. 

Infinitive. 
To be. 

* I be Thou beest He, she, or it be 

We be Ye or you be They be, 

from the Saxon 
Ic beo Thu beest He beeth, 

are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of say- 
ing, " Many there be that go in thereat," we should now say, " Many 
there are." For " to whom all hearts be open," we should now write, 
" to whom all hearts are open." We find them however used with the 
conjunctions if and though ; thus, " If this be my notion of a great part 
of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no 
mighty stress upon the rest." — Pope. That this was his notion the author 
had previously declared ; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly 
affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, "As this is my notion." 
" Although she be abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe 
your name most often in her mouth." — Swift. " The paper, although it 
be written with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling." — Swift. 
In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative ; nothing conditional 
or contingent being implied. 

In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. " If 
thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down ;" i. e. " shouldst be." " If 
I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid ;" s. e. " If I should be." 

f Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be 
pleaded in favour of wert, as the second person singular of this tense, I 
am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well 
as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confine 
wert to the imperfect conditional. 

h2 



J 00 ETYMOLOGY. 

It may seem inconsistent with the opinion which I have 
delivered concerning moods, to assign an infinitive to this 
verb ; and the existence of this infinitive may appear, 
perhaps, a sufficient refutation of that opinion. I shall, 
therefore, briefly repeat what I have said, and offer a few 
additional observations. 

I have remarked that the first care of men, in a rude and 
infant state, would be to assign names to surrounding ob- 
jects ; and that the noun, in the natural order of things, 
must have been the first part of speech. Their inventive 
powers would next be employed to express the most com- 
mon energies or states of being, such as are denoted by the 
verbs to do, to be, to suffer. Hence, by the help of these 
combined with a noun, they might express the energy or 
state of that thing, of which the noun was the name. 
Thus, I shall suppose, that they assigned the word plant, 
as the name of a vegetable set in the ground. To express 
the act of setting it, they would say, do plant, that is, act 
plant. The letters d and t being nearly allied, it is easy 
to conceive how the word do, by a variation very natural 
and common to all languages, might be changed into to ; 
and thus the word to prefixed to a noun would express the 
correspondent energy or action. 

In what light then are we to consider the phrase to plant, 
termed an infinitive, or to what class of words is it reduci- 
ble ? Previously to my answering this question, it is ne- 
cessary to remind the reader, that a verb joined to a noun 
forms a sentence ; that affirmation is essential to the cha- 
racter of a verb ; and that, for this reason, and this only, 
it has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of 
verb, or the word. Destroy this characteristic, and it is 
immediately confounded with the adjective, or the parti- 
ciple. It is its power of predication only, which constitutes 
it a distinct part of speech, and discriminates it from every 
other. Vir sapit, and vir est sapiens, are equivalent ex- 
pressions. Cancel the assertion, and the verb is lost. 
The expression becomes vir sapiens, "a wise man." This 



ETYMOLOGY. 101 

opinion, I am persuaded, requires only to be examined to 
be universally adopted. If this be the case, the infinitive, 
which affirms nothing, cannot, without impropriety, be 
deemed a verb. It expresses merely an action, passion, 
or state abstractedly. Hence many grammarians have 
justly considered it as no part of the verb; and, in the 
languages of Greece and Rome, the infinitive was employed 
like a common substantive, having frequently an adjective 
joined with it, and subject to the government of verbs and 
prepositions. This opinion has been lately controverted by 
a writer of considerable eminence as a Latin scholar. But, 
after examining the memoir with attention, I take upon 
me to a> ^1 that not a single example can be produced 
wherein the infinitive, as used by the Greeks and Romans, 
might not be supplied by the substitution of a noun. 
Wherefore, admitting the established principle, voces va- 
lent significatione, there cannot exist a doubt that the 
infinitive, which may in all cases be supplied by a noun, 
has itself the real character of a noun. And, if the essence 
of a verb consist in predication, and not, as some think, 
in implying time in conjunction with an attribute, which 
is the characteristic of a participle, then the infinitive, as 
it can predicate nothing, and joined to a substantive makes 
no sentence, cannot therefore be deemed a verb. When I 
say, legere est facile, " to read is easy,*" it is obvious that 
there is only one sentence in each of these expressions. But 
if legere (to read) were a verb as well as est (is), then 
there would be two verbs and also two affirmations, for 
affirmation is inseparable from a verb. I remark also, that 
the verbal noun lectio (reading) substituted for legere (to 
read) would precisely express the same sentiment. For 
these reasons I concur decidedly with those grammarians 
who are so far from considering the infinitive as a distinct 
mood, that they entirely exclude it from the appellation of 
verb. # 

* If the expression of time with an attribute " be sufficient to make a 
verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. 



102 ETYMOLOGY. 

It may be asked, what then is it to be called ? In an- 
swer to this query, I observe, that it matters little what 
designation be assigned to it, provided its character and 
office be fully understood. The ancient Latin gramma- 
rians, as Priscian informs us, termed it properly enough, 
nomen verbi, " the noun or name of the verb." To pro- 
scribe terms, which have been long familiar to us, and, by 
immemorial possession, have gained an establishment, is 
always a difficult, and frequently an ungracious task. I 
shall therefore retain its usual name, having sufficiently 
guarded the reader against a misconception of its character. 

Now, in our language, the infinitive has not even the 
distinction arising from termination, to entitle it to be 
ranked in the number of moods ; its form being the same 
with that of the present tense, and probably, both in its 
termination and its prefix, originally identical. For, if the 
doctrine just proposed be correct, the word do was put 
before each. To this rule the English language furnishes 
only one exception, namely, the verb of existence, in which 
the present indicative is am, whereas the infinitive is to be. 
This, however, can scarcely be deemed an exception, when 
it is considered, that the present indicative of this verb was 
originally be as well as am ; though the former be now in 
a state of obsolescence, or rather entirely obsolete. At the 
same time, as this is the only verb in which the infinitive 
differs in form from the present of the indicative, I have 
judged it necessary to note the exception, and assign the 
infinitive. 

Present part. Being 

Past part. Been. * 

But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to 
it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives 
never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun 
consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the 
subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so sub- 
sisting, they must of necessity be nouns." — R. Johnson's Gram. Comment. 
* The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it 
has proceeded from different sources. Am 



ETYMOLOGY. 103 

TO DO. 

Indicative Mood, 
Present. 

Sing. I do Thou doest or dost He doeth, doth or does 
Plur. We do Ye or you do They do. 

Preter perfect. 

Sing. I did Thou didst He, she, or it, did # 

Plur. We did Ye or you did They did. 

Participles. 
Present Doing 

Past Done. 

TO HAVE. 

Indicative Mood. 

Present. 

Sing. I have Thou hast He hath or has 

Plur. We have Ye or you have They have. 

Am is from the Anglo-Saxon eom, and is from the Anglo-Saxon ys or is; 
and these have been supposed to have come from the Greek up,/, us. 

The derivation of are is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded 
directly from er or erum of the Icelandic verb, denoting " to be." By Mr. 
Gilchrist it is considered as " the same with the infinitive termination are, 
ere, ire." Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation to 
the Greek s«p, spring. Both these explanations appear to us somewhat 
fanciful. 

Art is from the Anglo-Saxon eart. " Thou eart," thou art. 

Was is evidently the Anglo-Saxon was; and wast, wert, probably 
from the Franco-Theatisc, warst ; and were from the Anglo-Saxon ware, 
war on. 

Be is from the Anglo-Saxon Ic beo, I am, which, with the Gaelic verb 
hi, to be, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from Bios, life, as the Latin 
Jui, from <pvu, to grow. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent 
quotations. See Mr. Bosworth's " Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar," 
p. 164. 

* The words did, hast, hath, has, had, shalt, wilt, are evidently, as 
Wallis observes, contracted for doed, haveth, haves, haved, shaWst, wilVst. 



104 


ETYMOLOGY. 






Preterperfect. 




Sing. 


I had Thou hadst 


He had 


Plur. 


We had Ye or you had 

Participles. 


They had. 




Present Having 




Past Had. 






Liberty is expressed by the verb 




MAY. 






Indicative Mood. 


_ 




Present. 




Sing. 


I may Thou mayest 


He may 


Plur. 


We may Ye or you may 
Preterperfect. 


They may. # 


Sing. 


I might Thou mightest 


He might 


Plur. 


We might Ye or you might 


They might. 



Power or ability is expressed by 

CAN. 

Indicative Mood. 

Present. 

Sing. I can Thou canst He can 

Plur. We can Ye or you can They can. f 

* This verb is derived from the Saxon magan, posse, the present of 
which is Ie mag, and the preterite Ic miht. Hence also Ic mot. 

" For as the fisshe, if it be drie, 
Mote in defaute of water die." — Gower. 

t This verb is derived from cunnan, scire, posse, sapere. Hence is de- 
rived the verb "to ken," or " to know;" or more probably, indeed, they 
were one and the same word : hence, also, the word cunning. " To ken" 
is still used in Scotland ; and in the expression of Shakspeare, " I ken 
them from afar," is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, " I 
see them." 



ETYMOLOGY. 105 

Preter perfect. 
Sing. I could Thou couldst He could 

Plur. We could Ye or you could They could 

Futurition and duty are expressed by the verb shall, 
but not each in the three persons. 

Indicative Mood. 
Present. 
*Sing> I shall Thou shalt He shall 

Plur. We shall Ye or you shall They shall. 

* This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon rceal, I 
owe or I ought, and was originally of the same import. I shall denoted 
" it is my duty," and was precisely synonymous with debeo in Latin. 
Chaucer says, " The faith I shall to God ;" that is, " the faith I owe to 
God." « Thou shalt not kill," or " thou oughtest not to kill." In this 
sense, shall is a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. 
But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their 
obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution ; so 
by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, signifi- 
cant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered 
it however as a present tense; 1st, because it originally denoted present 
time ; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus 
the same analogy to should that can does to could, may to might, will to 
would; and 3dly, because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the preseut 
tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment ; 
for such precisely is the Greek verb piXkw, futurus sum. Nay, the verb 
will denotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, like shall, ex- 
presses futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verb shall as a present 
tense, of which should is the preter perfect. 

Johnson's explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, 
that as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his 
words. I shall love: " it will be so that I must love," " I am resolved to 
love." Shall I love ? " will it be permitted me to love ?" " will it be 
that I must love V Thou shalt love : " I command thee to love '" " it is 
permitted thee to love ;" " it will be, that thou must love." Shalt thou 
love ? " will it be, that thou must love ?" " will it be permitted thee to 
love V He shall love : " it will be, that he must love ;" " it is commanded 
that he love." Shall he love ? " is it permitted him to love ?*' The plural 
persons follow the signification of the singular. 

I transcribe also the same author's explanation of the verb I will, I 



106 ETYMOLOGY. 

P ret er perfect. 

Sing. I should Thou shouldst He should 

Plur, We should Ye or you should They should. 

Volition and futurity are expressed by the verb to will. 
Present. . 

Sing. I will Thou wilt He will 

Plur. We will Ye or you will They will.* 

Preterperfect. 
Sing. I would Thou wouldst He would 

Plur. We would Ye or you would They would. 

Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been followed by 
most other grammarians, call the tenses may, can, shall, 
willy absolute tenses ; might, could, should, would, condi- 
tional. That might, could, should, would, frequently 

will come : " I am willing to come/' " I am determined to come. 1 ' Thou 
ivilt come : " it must be, that thou must come," importing necessity ; 
or " it shall be, that thou shalt come," importing choice. Wilt thou come? 
" hast thou determined to come ?" importing choice. He will come : 
" he is resolved to come ;" or " it must be, that he must come," import- 
ing choice or necessity. 

Brightland's short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners 
to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this : 

" In the first person simply shall foretels : 
In will a threat, or else a promise, dwells ; 
Shall in the second and the third does threat ; 
Will simply then foretels the future feat." 

In addition to these directions for the use of shall and will, it is to be 
observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the 
subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts, shall foretels, as 
in the first person, thus, " he says he shall be a loser by this bargain ;" 
" do you suppose you shall go V " He hoped he should recover," and 
" he hoped he would recover," are expressions of different import. In 
the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person ; in the 
latter, they do not. 

* This verb is derived from the Saxon verb willan, velle, the preterite 
of which is Ic wold. 



ETYMOLOGY. 107 

imply conditional! ty, there can be no question ; but I am 
persuaded that the proper character of these tenses is 
unconditional affirmation, and for these two reasons : 

1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they are pre- 
terites indicative, proceeding from their respective presents, 
in the same manner as did from do, had from have, and 
having therefore the same unconditional meaning. Thus, 
/ may, is equivalent to " I am at liberty ;" / might, to 
" I was at liberty ;" i" can, means " I am able ;" I could, 
" I was able ;" i" will, " I am willing ;" I would, " I was 
willing." 

2dly. They are used to express unconditional meaning. 
If we say, " This might prove fatal to your interest," the 
assertion of the possibility of the event is as unconditional, 
as absolute, as, " This may prove fatal to your interest." 
" This, if you do it, will ruin your cause," is precisely 
equivalent to, " This, were you to do it, would ruin your 
cause ;" equivalent as far, at least, as the unconditional 
affirmation of the consequence of a supposed action is in- 
volved.* " I may write, if I choose," is not more absolute 
than " I might write, if I chose." If I say, " I might 
have gone to the Continent," the expression is as uncondi- 
tional as, "I had it in my power," " I was at liberty to 

* The preterite would is frequently employed, like the Latin preterim- 
perfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus, 

Quintilio siquid recitares, Corrige, sodes, 
Hoc, aiebat, et hoc : melius te posse negares, 
Bis terque expertum frustra ; delere jubebat. 
Si defendere delictum, quam vertere malles, 
Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem. 

Horace. 

where, the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, " he would 
say/' " he would desire," " he would spend." Thus also in English, 

Pleas d with my admiration, and the fire 
His speech struck from me, the old man would shake 
His years away, and act his young encounters : 
Then having show'd his wounds, he 'd sit him down. 



108 ETYMOLOGY. 

go to the Continent.'" " Can you construe Lycophron ?" 
" I cannot now ; but once I could" " May you do as you 
please?" "Not now; but once I might? Is there any 
conditionality implied in the latter clause of each of these 
answers ? Not the least. They are unconditionally assert- 
ive. The formation of these tenses, therefore, being ana- 
logous to that of preterites indicative, and their import in 
these examples, as in many others which might be adduced, 
being unconditional and absolute, I am inclined to consider 
them as preterites indicative, agreeably to their form, and 
as properly unconditional in respect to signification. 

I observe, however, that though might, could, would, 
should, are preterite tenses, they are frequently employed 
to denote present time;* but in such examples care must 
be taken that congruity of tense be preserved, and that the 
subsequent be expressed in the same tense with the ante- 
cedent verb. Thus I say, " I may go if I choose," where 
the liberty and inclination are each expressed as present, 
or " I might go if I chose," where, though present time be 
implied, the liberty is expressed by the preterite, and the 
inclination is denoted by the same tense. 

Before I proceed to show how these auxiliary verbs are 
joined with others, to express the intended accessary ideas, 
I shall offer a few observations on the participle. 

* In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same 
manner to denote present time ; thus, irem si vellem, expresses present 
liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin; for we 
say, either, tu, si hie sis, aliter sentias, or tu, si hie esses, aliter sent ires. 
In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two 
circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. An 
identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events. 



ETYMOLOGY. 109 



CHAPTER VI. 

A participle is a part of speech derived from a verb, 
agreeing with its primitive in denoting action, being, or 
suffering, but differing from it in this, that the participle 
implies no affirmation.* 

There are two participles, the present, ending in ing, 
as reading ;■(• and the perfect or past, generally ending in 
d or ed, as heard, loved. 

The present participle denotes the relatively present, or 

* If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered 
as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whether 
affirmation, the most important of all circumstances, and without which 
no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classi- 
fication of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they per- 
form. If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal 
part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name 
of verb, or the word, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a 
species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of 
thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a 
distinct reference, it is that of affirmation. 

If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a 
case, I would ask, because lectio, tactio, and many other substantives, are 
found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this 
account considered as verbs ? Besides, if the government of a case be 
urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern 
no case ? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of a 
verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen 
at all ? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the 
characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the 
whole. 

f The termination ing is from the Anglo-Saxon ande, cende, ende, ind, 
onde, unde, ynde, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds 
in andum and endum, expressing continuation, Amandum, Lufiande, 
Loving. 



110 ETYMOLOGY. 

the contemporary continuation of an action, or state of 
being. If we say, " James was building the house,'" the 
participle expresses the continuation of the action, and the 
verb may be considered as active. If we say, " the house 
was building, when the wall fell," the participle, the same 
as in the preceding example, denotes here the continuation 
of a state of suffering, or being acted upon ; and the verb 
may be considered as passive. This participle, therefore, 
denoting either action or passion, cannot with propriety 
be considered, as it has been by some grammarians, as 
entirely an active participle. Its distinctive and real cha- 
racter is, that in point of time it denotes the relatively 
present, and may therefore be called the present partici- 
ple ; and, in regard to action or passion, it denotes their 
continuance or incompletion, and may therefore be termed 
imperfect. In respect to time, therefore, it is present ; in 
respect to the action or state of being, it is continued or 
imperfect. But whether it express action or passion can 
be ascertained only by inquiring, whether the subject be 
acting or suffering ; and this is a question which judg- 
ment only can decide, the participle itself not determining 
the point. If we say, " the prisoner was burning," Our 
knowledge of the subject only can enable us to determine 
whether the prisoner was active or passive ; whether he 
was employing fire to consume, or was himself consuming 
by fire. 

The other participle, ending generally in ed, or d, has 
been called by some grammarians the passive participle, 
in contradistinction to the one which we have now been 
considering, and which they have termed the active par- 
ticiple. " This participle has been so called," says the 
author of the British Grammar, " because, joined with 
the verb to be, it forms the passive voice." If the reason 
here assigned justify its denomination as a passive partici- 
ple, there exists the same reason for calling it an active 
participle ; for, with the verb to have, it forms some of the 
compound tenses of the active voice. The truth is, that, 



ETYMOLOGY. Ill 

as those grammarians have erred who consider the par- 
ticiple in ing as an active participle, when it in fact de- 
notes either action or passion, so those, on the other hand, 
commit a similar mistake, who regard the participle in ed as 
purely passive. A little attention will suffice to show, 
that it belongs to neither the one voice nor the other 
peculiarly ; and that it denotes merely completion or per- 
fection, in contradistinction to the other participle, which 
expresses imperfection or continuation. If it be true, in- 
deed, that the participle in ing does not belong to the 
active voice only, but expresses merely the continuation 
of any act, passion, or state of being, analogy would in- 
cline us to infer, that the participle in ed, which denotes 
the completion of an act or state of being, cannot belong 
exclusively to the passive voice ; and I conceive, that on 
inquiry we shall find this to be the case. If I say, " he 
had concealed a poniard under his coat," the participle 
here would be considered as active. If I say, " he had a 
poniard concealed under his clothes," the participle would 
be regarded as passive. Does not this prove that this 
participle is ambiguous, that it properly belongs to neither 
voice, and that the context only or the arrangement can 
determine, whether it denote the perfection of an action, 
or the completion of a passion or state of being ? When 
I say, " Lucretia stabbed herself with a dagger, which 
she had concealed under her clothes," it is impossible to 
ascertain whether the participle be active or passive, that 
is, whether the verb had be here merely an auxiliary verb, 
or be synonymous with the verb to possess. If the former 
be intended, the syntactical collocation is, " she had con- 
cealed which (dagger) under her clothes :" if the latter, 
the grammatical order is, " she had which dagger con- 
cealed :" and it requires but little discernment to perceive 
that " she had concealed a dagger," and " had a dagger 
concealed, 1 '' are expressions by no means precisely equiva- 
lent. 

I need not here remind the classical scholar, that the 



112 ETYMOLOGY. 

Latins had two distinct forms of expression to mark this 
diversity ; the one, quern abdiderat, and the other, quern 
abditum habebat. The latter is the phraseology of Livy, 
describing the suicide of Lucretia. His words, if trans- 
lated, " which she had concealed,'" become ambiguous ; 
for this is equally a translation of quern abdiderat. It is 
observable also, that the phrase quern, abdiderat would no£ 
imply, that the dagger was in the possession of Lucretia 
at the time. 

The participle in ed, therefore, I consider to be per- 
fectly analogous to the participle in ing, and used like it 
in either an active or a passive sense; belonging therefore 
neither to the one voice nor the other exclusively, but de- 
noting the completion of an action or state of being, while 
the participle in ing denotes its continuation. 

In exhibiting a paradigm of the conjugation of our 
verbs, many grammarians have implicitly and servilely 
copied the Latin grammar, transferring into our language 
the names both of tenses and moods which have formally 
no existence in English. " I may burn,'" is denominated, 
by the author of the British Grammar, the present sub- 
junctive ; "I might burn,'" the imperfect subjunctive; 
" I may have burned,"" the preterperfect ; and so on. This 
is directly repugnant to the simplicity of our language, 
and is, in truth, as absurd as it would be to call " we two 
love,"" the dual number of the present tense ; or " he shall 
soon be buried,"" a " paulo post future."" Were this prin- 
ciple carried its full length, we should have all the tenses, 
moods, and numbers, which are to be found in Greek or 
Latin. It appears to me, that nothing but prejudice or 
affectation could have prompted our English grammarians 
to desert the simple structure of their own language, and 
wantonly to perplex it with technical terms, for things 
not existing in the language itself. 

I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjugation of 
the English verb, to give the simple tenses, as the only 
ones belonging to our language ; and then show how, by 



ETYMOLOGY. 113 

the aid of other words combined with these, we contrive 
to express the requisite modifications, and various acces- 
sary ideas. 

Indicative Present. Preter. Part. Perf. 

Write Wrote Written. 

Present Tense. 

S. I write Thou writest He writes or writeth. 

P. We write Ye or you write They write. 

This tense is by some grammarians called the present in- 
definite ; while by others it is considered as either definite 
or indefinite. When it expresses an action now present, 
it is termed the present definite, as, 

" I write this after a severe illness. 1, — Pope^s Letters. 

" Saul, why persecutest thou me ?" — Bible. 

11 This day begins the woe, others must end." — Shakspeare. 

If the proposition expressed be general, or true at all 
times, this tense is then termed the present indefinite ; as, 
" The wicked flee when God pursueth." 

" Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear; 
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all." — Shakspeare. 







Preter perfect. 




s. 


I wrote 


Thou wrotest 


He wrote. 


p. 


We wrote 


Ye or you wrote 


They wrote. 



This tense is indefinite, no particular past time being 
implied. 

These are the only two tenses in our language formed 
by varying the termination ; the only two tenses, there- 
fore, which properly belong to it. 

Present Progressive, or continued. 
S. I am writing Thou art writing He is writing. 
P. We are writing You are writing They are writing. 

i 



114 ETYMOLOGY. 

This tense denotes a present action proceeding. In re- 
gard to time, it has been termed definite ; and, in respect 
to action, it differs from the other present in this, that 
the former has no reference either to the perfection or im- 
perfection of the action ; whereas this denotes that the 
action is continued and imperfect. 

Prese?it Emphatic* 

S. I do write Thou dost write He doth or does write. 
P. We do write Ye or you do write They do write. 

This form of the verb is emphatic, and generally im- 
plies doubt or contradiction on the part of the person 
addressed, to remove which the assertion is enforced by 
the auxiliary verb. In respect to time and action, it is 
precisely the same with / write 

" You cannot dread an honourable death." 

" I do dread it." 

" Excellent wretch ! perdition seize my soul, but I do 
love thee.'" 

Cancel the auxiliary verb, and the expression becomes 
feeble and spiritless. This is one of those phraseologies, 
which it would be impossible to render in a transpositive 
language. Di me perdant, quin te amem, is an expression 
comparatively exanimate and insipid. 

Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic. 

S. I did write Thou didst write He did write. 
P. We did write You did write They did write. 

as, " This to me in dreadful secrecy impart they did." 
The emphasis here, however, may partly arise from the 
inverted collocation. The following example is there- 
fore more apposite. " I have been told, that you have 
slighted me, and said, I feared to face my enemy. You 
surely did not wrong me thus ?" " I did say so." 



ETYMOLOGY. 115 

This tense is indefinite, in respect both to the time, and 
the completion of the action. 

Prefer. Imp. fyc. continued. 

S. I was writing Thou wast writing He was writing. 
P. We were writing Ye were writing They were writing. 

This tense denotes that an action was proceeding, or 
going on, at a time past either specified or implied, as, 
" I was writing, when you called." 



Prefer 'perfect. 

S. I have Thou hast He has 

P. We have You have They have 



> written. 



This tense expresses time as past, and the action as 
perfect. It is compounded of the present tense of the 
verb denoting possession, and the perfect participle. It 
signifies a perfect action either newly finished, or in a 
time of which there is some part to elapse, or an action 
whose consequences extend to the present. In short, it 
clearly refers to present time. This, indeed, the com- 
position of the tense manifestly evinces. Thus, " I have 
written a letter," means, " I possess at present the finish- 
ed action of writing a letter." This phraseology, I ac- 
knowledge, seems uncouth and inelegant ; but, how awk- 
ward soever it may appear, the tense is unquestionably 
thus resolvable. 

1st, It expresses an action newly finished, as, " I un- 
derstand that a messenger has arrived from Paris," that 
4s, " newly," or " just now," arrived. 

2dly, An action done in a space of time, part of which 
is yet to elapse ; as, " It has rained all this week," " We 
have seen strange things this century." 

3dly, An action perfected some time ago, but whose 
consequences extend to the present time ; as, " I have 
wasted my time, and now suffer for my folly." 

i 2 



116 ETYMOLOGY. 

This tense has been termed, by some grammarians, the 
perfect indefinite, and " I wrote," the perfect definite. 
The argument which they offer for this denomination is, 
that the latter admits a definitive, to specify the precise 
time, and the former rejects it. Those who reason in 
this manner seem to me not only chargeable with a per- 
version of terms, but also to disprove their own theory. 
For what is meant by a definite term ? Not surely that 
which admits or requires a definitive to give it precision ; 
but that which of itself is already definite. If, therefore, 
u I wrote, 1 ' not only admits, but even requires the sub- 
junction of a defining term or clause to render the time 
definite and precise, it cannot surely be itself a definite 
tense. Besides, they appear to me to reason in this case 
inconsistently with their own principles. For they call, 
I am writing, a definite tense ; and why ? but because it 
defines the action to be imperfect, or the time to be relative- 
ly present.* But if they reason here as they do in respect 
to the preterite tenses, they ought to call this an inde- 
finite tense, because it admits not a definitive clause. 
They must, therefore, either acknowledge that / have 
written, is a definite tense, and / wrote, indefinite; or 
they must, contrary to their own principles, call / am 
writing indefinite. 

Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek Tenses,-f- 
contends, that i" wrote is the perfect definite, and I have 
written the perfect indefinite. " I wrote," says he, " is 
not intelligible without referring to some precise point of 
time, e. g. when I was in France. Why then does Dr. 
Beattie say / wrote is indefinite, because it refers to no 
particular past time ? No : it is indefinite because the 
verb in that tense does not define, whether the action be 
complete, or not complete. And why does he say, I have 
written is definite in respect of time ? for it refers to no 

* Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles ; for 
the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive. 
-f See the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. iii. 



ETYMOLOGY. 117 

particular time at which the event happened. Put this 
example : A says to B, c I wish you would write to that 
man.' c / have written to him? The sense is complete ; 
the expression is not supposed to refer to any particular 
time, and does not necessarily elicit any farther inquiry. 
But if B answers, * / wrote to himf he is of course sup- 
posed to have in his mind a reference to some particular 
time, and it naturally calls on A to ask when ? Is it not 
clear then that I wrote refers to some particular time, and 
cannot have been called indefinite, as Dr. Beattie supposes, 
from its not doing so F" 

Dr. Browne's argument is chargeable with inconsist- 
ency. He says, that because / have written elicits no 
farther inquiry, and renders the sense complete, it denotes 
no determinate time ; and that 1" wrote refers to a parti- 
cular time, prompting to farther inquiry. This at least 
I take to be the scope of his reasoning ; for, if it be not 
from their occasioning, or not occasioning, farther interro- 
gation, that he deduces his conclusion concerning the na- 
ture of these tenses, his argument seems nothing but pure 
assertion. Now, so far from calling that a definite tense, 
which necessarily requires, as he himself states, a defining 
clause to specify the point of time, I should call it an in- 
definite tense. He admits that / wrote refers to time past 
in general, and that it requires some farther specification 
to render the time known, as, / wrote yesterday \ In this 
case, surely it is not the term wrote, but yesterday , which 
defines the precise time ; the tense itself expressing nothing 
but past time in general. 

For the same reason, if, as he acknowledges, I have writ- 
ten elicits no farther inquiry, it is an argument that the 
sense is complete, and the time sufficiently understood by 
the hearer. Besides, is it not somewhat paradoxical to 
say that a tense which renders farther explanation un- 
necessary, and the sense complete, thus satisfying the 
hearer, is indefinite ? and that a tense which does not 
satisfy the hearer, but renders farther inquiry necessary, 



118 ETYMOLOGY. 

is definite? This, to say the least, is somewhat extra- 
ordinary. 

The observations of Lord Monboddo on this subject 
are not inapplicable to the point in question : I shall there- 
fore transcribe them. 

" There are actions," says he, " which end in energy, 
and produce no work which remains after them. What 
shall we say of such actions ? cannot we say, I have danced 
a dance, taken a walk, &c. and how can such actions be 
said in any sense to be present ? My answer is, that the 
consequences of such actions, respecting the speaker, or 
some other person or thing, are present, and what these 
consequences are appears from the tenor of the discourse. 
6 I have taken a walk, and am much better for it. 1 ' I 
have danced a dance, and am inclined to dance no more.'' " 

The order of nature being maintained, as Mr. Harris 
observes, by a succession of contrarieties, the termination 
of one state of things naturally implies the commencement 
of its contrary. Hence this tense has been employed to 
denote an attribute the contrary to that which is express- 
ed by the verb. Thus the Latins used vixit, " he hath 
lived, " to denote " he is dead :" fuit Ilium, " Troy has 
been," to signify Troy is no more. A similar phraseology 
obtains in English, thus, " I have been young" is equiva- 
lent to " now I am old." 



Preter Imperfect. 

Sing. I have been Thou hast been He has been ") 
Plur. We have been You have been They have been J 



writing. 



This tense, in respect to time, is the same as the last, 
but implies the imperfection of the action, and denotes its 
progression. 



Preter Pluperfect. 

Sing. I had Thou hadst He had 

Plur. We had Ye or you had They had 



}- 



ntten. 



ETYMOLOGY. 119 

This tense denotes that an action was perfected before 
another action was done. 

Plusquam Preterite Imperfect. 

Sing. I had been Thou hadst been He had been \ 

Plur. We had been Ye had been They had been * 

This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and in 
respect to action is imperfect. It denotes that an action 
was going on, or in a state of progression, before another 
action took place, or before it was perfected; as, " I had 
been writing before you arrived." 







Future Indefinite* 


Sing. 


I shall 


Thou shalt He shall 


Plur. 


We shall 


Ye or you shall They shall 


Sing. 


I will 


OR 

Thou wilt He will 


Plur. 


We will 


Ye or you will They will 



write. 



write. 



These compound tenses denote the futurity of an action 
indefinitely, without any reference to its completion. The 
meaning of the several persons has been already ex- 
plained. 

Future, Imp. Progressive. 

I shall or will be We shall or will be "^ 

Thou shalt or wilt be Ye shall or will be > writing. 

He shall or will be They shall or will be J 



This tense agrees with the former in respect to time, 
but differs from it in this, that the former has no reference 
to the completion of the action, while the latter expresses 
its imperfection and progression. 

Future Perfect, 

I shall have We shall have "k 

Thou shalt have Ye shall have /-written. 

He shall have They shall have ) 

This tense denotes that a future action will be per- 



120 ETYMOLOGY. 

fected 5 before the commencement or completion of another 
action, or before a certain future time ; as, " Before you 
can have an answer, I shall have written a second letter." 
" By the time he shall have arrived, you will have con- 
quered every difficulty." In short, it denotes, that at 
some future time an action will be perfected. 

As it has been a subject of great controversy among 
grammarians, what tenses should be called definite and 
what indefinite, I shall now offer a few observations which 
may serve to illustrate the point in question. 

Duration, like space, is continuous and uninterrupted. 
It is divisible in idea only. It is past or future, merely 
in respect to some intermediate point, which the mind 
fixes as the limit between the one and the other. Present 
time, in truth, does not exist any more than a mathema- 
tical line can have breadth, or a mathematical point be 
composed of parts. This position has, indeed, been con- 
troverted by Dr. Beattie ; but, in my judgment, without 
the shadow of philosophical argument. # Harris, Reid, 

* Dr. Beattie observes, " that the fundamental error of those philo- 
sophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the 
present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor mag- 
nitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point 
(for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude), so 
neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended." His 
argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object 
of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical in- 
stant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the 
author's position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their simi- 
larity ? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite 
the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal ; it is 
necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be con- 
ceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, 
we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present 
time, is in like manner ideal ; but we find it convenient to assume as 
present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives 
nothing but what is present. It is true ; but it should be remembered 
that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses- 
It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will 
ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, 



ETYMOLOGY. 121 

and several others, have incontrovertibly proved it. 
But though present time, philosophically speaking, has 
no existence, we find it convenient to assume a certain 
portion of the past and the future, as intermediate spaces 
between these extremes, and to consider these spaces as 
present ; for example, the present day, the present week, 
the present year, the present century, though part of 
these several periods be past, and part to come. We 
speak of them, however, as present, as " this month,*" 
" this year," " this day." Time being thus in its nature 
continuous, and past and future being merely relative 
terms, some portion or point of time being conceived 
where the one begins and the other ends, it is obvious 
that all tenses indicative of any of these two general 
divisions must denote relative time, that is, time past or 
future, in relation to some conceived or assumed space ; 
thus it may be past or future, in respect to the present 
hour, the present day, the present week. 

Again. The term indefinite is applicable either to time 
or to action. It may, therefore, be the predicate of a tense, 
denoting either that the precise time is left undetermined, 
or that the action specified is not signified, as either com- 
plete or imperfect. Hence the controversy has been partly 
verbal. Hence also the contending parties have seemed to 

is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future ? If it be 
the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be 
present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is 
it not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be 
performed ? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present 
time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, 
it must be extended ; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and 
future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, 
that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most 
tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, 
that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure and not 
a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended 
time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, 
must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, in- 
capable of division, being not made up of parts. 



\%% ETYMOLOGY. 

differ, while, in fact, they were agreed ; and, on the con- 
trary, have seemed to accord, while their opinions were, 
in truth, mutually repugnant. 

Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, and pleads 
the authority of Mr. Harris in his favour. It is true, 
indeed, that Mr. Harris calls those tenses definite which 
denote the beginning, the middle, or the perfection of an 
action ; but it is obvious, from the most superficial ex- 
amination of his theory, that he denominates the tenses 
definite or indefinite, not in respect to action, but to time. 
When, in the passage from Milton, 

" Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, 
Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep/' 

he considers " walk " as indefinite, is it in regard to 
action ? No. " It is," says he, " because they were 
walking, not at that instant only, but indefinitely, at any 
instant whatever." And when he terms Thou shalt not 
kill an indefinite tense, is it because it has no reference to 
the completion or the imperfection of the action ? No ; 
it is " because," says he, " this means no particular future 
time, but is extended indefinitely to every part of time." 
Besides, if Mr. Harris's and Dr. Browne's ideas coincide, 
how comes it that the one calls that a definite tense, which 
the other terms indefinite ? This does not look like ac- 
cordance in sentiment, or in the application of terms. 
Yet the tenses in such examples as these, 

" The wicked flee when God pursueth ;" 

" Ad poenitendum properat, cito qui judicat;" 

" God is good ;" " Two and two are four ;" 

which Harris and Beattie properly call indefinite, Browne 
terms definite. Nay, he denominates them thus for the 
very reason for which the others call them indefinite, 
namely, because the sentiments are always true, and the 
time of their existence never perfectly past. So far in 
respect to Mr. Harris's authority in favour of Browne, 



ETYMOLOGY. 123 

when he confines the terms definite and indefinite to action 
only. * 

But I forbear to prosecute this controversy further, or 
to point out the inaccuracies with which I apprehend 
many writers on this subject are chargeable. I therefore 
proceed to review and illustrate the doctrine of the tenses 
which I have already offered. 

The present time being, as I have already observed, an 
assumed space, and of no definite extent, as it may be 
either the present minute, the present hour, the present 
month, the present year, all of which consist of parts, it 
follows that, as the present time is itself indefinite, having 
no real existence, but being an arbitrary conception of the 
mind, the tense significant of that time must be also in- 
definite. This, I conceive, must be ■ sufficiently evident. 
Hence the present tense not only admits, but frequently 
requires the definitive now to limit the interval between 
past and future, or to note the precise point of time. 

Time past and time future are conceived as infinitely 
more extended than the present. The tenses, therefore, 
significant of these two grand divisions of time, are also 
necessarily indefinite. 

Again, an action may be expressed, either as finished, 
or as proceeding ; or it may be the subject of affirmation, 
without any reference to either of these states. In Eng- 
lish, to denote the continuation of the action we employ 
the present or imperfect participle ; and to denote its 
completion we use the preterite or perfect participle. When 
neither is implied, the tenses, significant of the three divi- 
sions of time, without any regard to the action as complete 
or imperfect, are uniformly employed. 

* When we say, God is good, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the 
verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfec- 
tion, or have no reference to either. It appears to me, that neither of 
the terms is in his sense applicable ; for that the verb denotes simple 
affirmation with time; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his 
opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely 
excluded. 



124 ETYMOLOGY. 

The tenses, therefore, indefinite as to time and action 
are these : 

The Present I write 

The Preterite I wrote 

The Future I shall write. 

The six following compound tenses are equally inde- 
finite in point of time ; but they denote either the com- 
pletion or the progress of the action, and in this respect 
are definite 

Its progress. 
I am writing 
I was writing 
I shall be writing. 

Its perfection, as 
I have written 
I had written 
I shall have written. 



I write I am writing I have written. 
The first is indefinite as to time and action. If I say, 
" I write," it is impossible to ascertain by the mere ex- 
pression, whether be signified, " I write now," " I write 
daily," or, " I am a writer in general." It is the con- 
comitant circumstances only, either expressed or under- 
stood, which can determine what part of the present 
time is implied. When Pope introduces a letter to Lady 
M. W. Montague with these words, " I write this after a 
severe illness," is it the tense which marks the time, or is 
it not the date of the letter, with which the writing is un- 
derstood to be contemporary ? If you and I should see 
a person writing, and either of us should say, " he writes/* 
the proposition would be particular, and time present 
with the speaker's observation would be understood : but, 
is it not evident, that it is not the tense which defines the 
present now, but the obvious circumstance of the person's 



ETYMOLOGY. 125 

writing at the time? And when the king, in Hamlet, 
says, 

" My words fly up, my thoughts remain below : 
Words, without thoughts, never to heaven go," 

what renders the two first propositions particular, or con- 
fines the tenses to the time then present, while the last 
proposition is universally true, and the tense indefinite ? 
Nothing, I conceive, but the circumstances of the speaker. 
Nay, does it not frequently happen, that we must subjoin 
the word now to this tense, in order to define the point of 
time ? Did the tense of itself note the precise time, this 
definitive would in no case be necessary. If I say, " Apples 
are ripe," the proposition, considered independently on 
adventitious circumstances, is general and indefinite. The 
time may be defined by adding a specific clause, as, " in 
the month of October ;'' or, if nothing be subjoined, the 
ellipsis is supplied either by the previous conversation, or 
in some other way, and the hearer understands, " are now 
ripe."" This tense, therefore, I consider as indefinite in 
point of time. That it is indefinite in regard to action, 
there can be no question. 

/ am writing. 

This tense also is indefinite in respect to time. It de- 
rives its character as a tense from the verb am, which 
implies affirmation with time, either now, generally, or 
always. Mr. Harris calls it the present definite, as I have 
already remarked; and in regard to action it is clearly 
definite. It is this, and this only, which distinguishes it 
from the other present, I write, the latter having no re- 
ference to the perfection or imperfection of the action, 
while / am writing denotes its continuation. Hence it is, 
that the latter is employed to express propositions gene- 
rally or universally true, the idea of perfection or incom- 
pletion being, in such cases, excluded. Thus we say, 
The wicked flee when God pursueth; but not, as I con- 



126 ETYMOLOGY. 

ceive, with equal propriety, The wicked are fleeing when 
God is pursuing . 

/ have written; 

As / am writing denotes the present continuation of an 
action, so I have written expresses an action completed 
in a time supposed to be continued to the present, or an 
action whose consequences extend to the present time. As 
a tense, it derives its character from the tense J have, sig- 
nificant of present time ; while the perfection of the action 
is denoted by the perfect participle. But as I have shown 
that every tense significant of present time must be, in 
regard to time, indefinite, so this tense, compounded of 
the present tense / have, must, in this respect, be therefore 
indefinite. 

Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several others 
have assigned it the name of the preterite definite, and / 
wrote they have termed the preterite indefinite. Browne, 
and one or two others, have reversed this denomination. 
Now, that / wrote does not of itself define what part of 
past time is specified, appears to me very evident. This 
is, indeed, admitted by those who contend for the definite 
nature of this tense. Why then do they call it a de- 
finite tense ? because, they say, it admits a definitive 
term, by the aid of which it expresses the precise 
time, as, " I wrote yesterday," " a week ago," " last 
month ;" whereas we cannot say, " I have written yester- 
day." Now, as I remarked before, this appears to me a 
perversion of language ; for we do not denominate that 
term definite, which requires a definitive to render it pre- 
cise. Why have the terms the, this, that, been called 
definitives ? Is it because they admit a defining term ? 
or is it not because they limit or define the import of 
general terms ? I concur, therefore, with the author of 
the article " Aorist," in the " Nouvelle Encyclopedic," 
when he ridicules a Mr. Demandre for giving the cha- 
racter of definite to a tense which marks past time inde- 
finitely. This certainly is a perversion of terms. 



ETYMOLOGY. 127 

" When we make use of the auxiliary verb," says Dr. 
Priestley, " we have no idea of any certain portion of time 
intervening between the time of action and the time of 
speaking of it ,* the time of action being some period that 
extends to the present, as, ' I have this year, this morning, 
written,' spoken in the same year, the same morning; 
whereas, speaking of an action done in a period past, we 
use the preterite tense, and say, 6 1 wrote,' intimating that 
a certain portion of time is past, between the time of action 
and the time of speaking of it.' 1 To the same purpose 
nearly are the words of the author of the article " Gram- 
mar," in the " Encyclopedia Britannica." " I have written,'''' 
says he, " is always joined with a portion of time which 
includes the present now or instant ; for otherwise it could 
not signify, as it always does, the present possession of the 
finishing of an action. But the aorist, which signifies no 
such possession, is as constantly joined with a portion of 
past time, which excludes the present now or instant. Thus 
we say, ' I have written a letter this day,' i this week,' &c. 
but J wrote a letter yesterday ; and to interchange these 
expressions would be improper. 

The explanation which these grammarians have given of 
the tense / have written, appears to me perfectly correct, 
and I would add, that, though the interval between the 
time of action and the time of speaking of it may be con- 
siderable ; yet, if the mind, in consequence of the effect's 
being extended to the present time, should conceive no 
time to have intervened, this tense is uniformly employed. 

That the aorist excludes the present instant is equally 
true : but that it is incapable of being joined, as the lat- 
ter of these grammarians supposes, to a portion of time 
part of which is not yet elapsed, is an assertion by no 
means correct ; for I can say, " I wrote to-day," or " this 
day," as well as, " i" have written" " I dined to-day," 
says Swift, " with Mr. Secretary St. John." " I took 
some good walks in the park to-day." " I walked purely 
to-day about the park." " I was this morning with Mr. 



128 ETYMOLOGY. 

Secretary about some business." Numberless other exam- 
ples might be produced in which this tense is joined with 
a portion of time not wholly elapsed. 

What then, it may be asked, is the difference between 
this and the tense which is termed the preterite definite ? 
I shall endeavour to explain it, though, in doing this, I 
may be chargeable with repetition. 

When an action is done in a time continuous to the 
present instant, we employ the auxiliary verb. Thus on 
finishing a letter I say, " I have written my letter ," " / 
possess (now) the finished action of writing a letter.'''' 

Again : When an action is done in a space of time 
which the mind assumes as present, or when we express 
our immediate possession of things done in that space, we 
use the auxiliary verb. " I have this week written several 
letters." " / have now the perfection of writing several 
letters , finished this week.'" * 

Again : When an action has been done long ago, but 
the mind is still in possession of its consequences, these 
having been extended to the present time, unconscious or 
regardless of the interval between the time of acting and 
the time of speaking, we use the auxiliary verb. Thus, 
" I, like others, have, in my youth, trifled with my health, 
and old age now prematurely assails me. 1 ' In all these 
cases, there is a clear reference to present time. / have 
must imply present possession, and that the action either 
as finished or proceeding is present to the speaker. This 
must be admitted, unless we suppose that the term have 
has no appropriate or determinate meaning. 

On the other hand, the aorist excludes all idea of the 
present instant. It supposes an interval to have elapsed 
between the time of the action and the time of speaking of 
it ; the action is represented as leaving nothing behind it 

* These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are 
harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward ; but a little attention 
will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the 
tense which we have at present under consideration. 



ETYMOLOGY. ] 29 

which the mind conceives to have any relation to its 
present circumstances, as, " Three days ago I lodged in 
the Strand." 

But, though it unquestionably excludes the present 
instant, or the moment of speaking, which the verb have 
embraces, yet it does not exclude that portion of present 
time, which is represented as passing. All that is necessary 
to the use of this tense is, that the piesent now be exclud- 
ed, that an interval have elapsed between the time of" 
action, and the time of speaking of it, and that these times 
shall not appear to be continuous. When Swift says, " it 
has snowed terribly all night, and is vengeance cold,'" it is 
to be observed, that though the former of these events took 
place in a time making no part of the day then passing, 
yet its effects extended to that day ; he therefore employs 
the auxiliary verb. When he says, " I have been dining 
to-day at Lord Mountjoy's, and am come home to study," 
he, in like manner, connects the two circumstances as 
continuous. 

But, when he says, "it snowed all this morning, and 
was some inches thick in three or four hours," it is to be 
observed that, contrary to the opinion of the author* I 
have quoted, he joins the aorist with a portion of time then 
conceived as present or passing, but the circumstances, 
which had taken place, were nowise connected with the 
time of his writing, or conceived as continuous to the date 
of his letter. If he had said, " it has snowed all this 
morning, and is now two inches thick," the two times 
would have appeared as continuous, their events being 
connected as cause and effect. 

I wrote I was writing I had written. 

The first of these, as a tense, has been already explained ; 
it remains, therefore, to inquire, whether it be definite or 
indefinite in respect to action. 

I observe then, that a tense may frequently, by infer- 

* See Encyc. Brit. Art. Grammar. 

K 



130 ETYMOLOGY. 

ence, denote the perfection of an action, and thus appear 
to be definite ; though, in its real import, it be significant 
neither of completion nor imperfection, and therefore, in 
regard to action, is indefinite. This seems to be the cha- 
racter of the tenses, / write, I wrote, I shall ivrite. 

" Mr. Harris," says Browne, " truly calls / wrote and 
/ write indefinites, although the man who wrote, has writ- 
ten, that is, the action is perfected, and the man who 
writes, is writing, that is, the action is imperfect ; but the 
perfection and imperfection, though it be implied, not 
being expressed, not being brought into view (to do which 
the auxiliary verb is necessary), nor intended to be so, 
such tenses are properly called indefinites. 1 " 

Though I am persuaded that Harris and Browne, 
though they concur in designing certain tenses indefinite, 
are in principle by no means agreed, yet the observations of 
the latter, when he confines the terms to action, appear to 
me incontrovertible. I would only remark, that it is not 
the presence of the auxiliary, as Browne conceives, which 
is necessary to denote the completion of the action, but 
the introduction of the perfect participle. Nay, I am 
persuaded, that, as it is the participle in ing, and this 
only, which denotes the progression or continuation of 
the action, this circumstance in every other phraseology 
being inferred, not expressed, so I am equally convinced, 
that it is the perfect participle only which denotes the 
completion of the action ; and that, if any tense, not com- 
pounded of this participle, express the same idea, it is by 
inference, and not directly. According to this view of 
the matter, a clear and simple analogy subsists among the 
tenses ; thus, 

First class. Second. Third. 

I write I am writing I have written 

I wrote I was writing I had written 

I shall write I shall be writing I shall have written. 



ETYMOLOGY. 131 

Now, if the progression or the perfection of an action, 
as present, past, or future, be all the possible variations, 
and if these be expressed by the second and third classes, 
it follows that, if there be any precise distinction between 
these and the first class, or unless the latter be wholly su- 
pernumerary, it differs in this from the second and third, 
that while they express, either that the action is pro- 
gressive, or that it is complete, the first has no reference 
to its perfection or imperfection. 

/ was v)riting. 

This tense, like J wrote, is, in point of time, indefinite ; 
but, in respect to action, it is definite. It denotes that an 
action was proceeding in a time past, which time must be 
defined by some circumstance expressed or understood. 

I had written. 

This, as a tense, derives its character from the preterite 
of the verb to have, implying past possession. Had being 
an aorist, this tense, in regard to time, must therefore be 
indefinite. In respect to action it is definite, implying, 
that the action was finished. As the aorist expresses 
time past, and by inference the perfection of the action, 
while the latter circumstance is additionally denoted by 
the participle, this compound tense is employed to denote, 
that an action was perfected before another action or 
event, now also past, took place. 

The character of the remaining tenses seems to require 
no farther explanation. I proceed therefore to consider 
how we express interrogations, commands, necessity, 
power, liberty, will, and some other accessary circum- 
stances. 

An interrogation is expressed by placing the nomina- 
tive after the concordant person of the tense; thus, " Thou 
comest" is an affirmation; " Comest thou?" is an inter- 
rogation. If the tense be compound, the nominative is 

k 2 



132 ETYMOLOGY. 

placed after the auxiliary, as, " Dost thou come P" " Hast 
thou heard ?" 

A command, exhortation, or entreaty, is expressed by 
placing the pronoun of the second person after the simple 
form of the verb ; as, 

Write thou Write ye 

or or 

Do thou write Do ye write : 

and sometimes by the verb simply, the person being un- 
derstood ; as, write, run, be, let.* By the help of the 
word let, which is equivalent to " permit thou,"" or " per- 
mit ye," we express the persons of the Latin and Greek 
imperatives ; thus, let me, let us, let him, let them, write. 
Present necessity is denoted by the verb must, thus, 

I must Thou must He must l . L , 

T7 ,_.. I wnte.T 

We must Ye must They must j 

This verb having only one tense, namely, the present, past 
necessity is expressed by the preterite definite of the verb, 
significant of the thing necessary, as, 

* I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more 
cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But, if any per- 
son be inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of impera- 
tive mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call 
" Dost thou love ?" an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, 
the requisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c. together with the various 
cases in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions 
and auxiliary verbs ; I should only apprehend, that language would fail 
him to assign them names. 

If it should be asked, " Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as im- 
plying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the 
following sentences, Depart instantly, improve your time, forgive us our 
sins ? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions ?" 
I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my 
apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do 

-j- This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, ego debeo. 



I must have Thou must have, &c. , 

1 written 



ETYMOLOGY. 133 

ive, &c. ) 

>- wril 
We must have Ye must have, &c. J 

Present Liberty. 

I may Thou mayest He may ] 

We may Ye may They may j 

Past Liberty. 

I might Thou mightest He might ) . 

We might Ye might They might J 

Or, 

I might have Thou mightest have, &c. 

We might have Ye might have, &c. 

Present Ability. 

I can Thou canst He can 

We can Ye can They can 

Past Ability. 

I could Thou couldst He could 

We could Ye could They could 



J- wri 



written. 



write. 



write. 



nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, 
his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, 
the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion ; and 
must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he 
desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, 
that " thou oughtest not to kill," " thou shalt not kill," " thou art for- 
bidden to kill/' are affirmations. And are not these expressions so 
nearly equivalent to " do not kill," that in Greek and Latin they are 
rendered indifferently either by ov Qonucrus, or p* Qovevi ; non occides, or 
ne occidito ? If then we say, " kill thou," will it be contended that, 
though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the com- 
mand does not ? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to 
¥ thou shalt kill," " thou art ordered to kill." Hence ave and jubeo te 
avere, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be 
examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined 
to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be 
established a diversity of mood. 



134 ETYMOLOGY. 

Or, 

I could have Thou couldst have, &c. 1 

v written. 
We could have Ye could have, &c. j 

Could, the preterite of the verb can, expressing past 
power or ability, is, like the tense might of the verb 
may, frequently employed to denote present time. Of 
their denoting past time the following may serve as 
examples. 

" Can you construe Lycophron now ? No ; but once 
I could." 

" May you speak your sentiments freely? No; but 
once I might." 

That they likewise denote present time, I have already 
adduced sufficient evidence. Might and could, being fre- 
quently used in conjunction with other verbs, to express 
present time, past liberty and ability are generally de- 
noted by the latter phraseology ; thus, " I might have 
written," " I could have written." Some farther obser- 
vations respecting the nature of these tenses I purpose to 
make, when I come to consider what has been termed the 
subjunctive or conjunctive mood. 

Present Duty or Obligation. 

I ought Thou oughtest He ought 1 

We ought Ye ought They ought J 

Past Duty. 

I ought Thou oughtest He ought } to have 

We ought Ye ought They ought ) written. 

The same is expressed by the verb should. Ought being 
now always considered as a present tense, past duty is 
expressed by taking the preterite definite of the following 
verb. 

Having shown how most of the common accessary cir- 
cumstances are signified in our language, I proceed to 






ETYMOLOGY. 135 

explain how we express the circumstance of suffering, or 
being acted upon. 

The manner of denoting this in English is simple and 
easy. All that is necessary is to join the verb to be with 
the present participle, if the state of suffering be imperfect 
or proceeding; and with the perfect participle, if it be 
complete; thus, 

I am Thou art He is ) 

ttt ^ mu r written. 

We are i e are 1 hey are ) 



Preterite. 
I was Thou wast He was 

We were Ye were They were 



!- written. 



I have been I had been I shall be 

written. 



I may be I might be I could be 



} 



If the state be imperfect, the participle in i/ig must be 
substituted; thus, 

The house is building "| 

The house was building >- Progressive. 

The house shall be building J 

The house is built ^ 

The house was built > Perfect. 

The house shall be built J 

Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, 
admit, without altering their signification, either phrase- 
ology ; thus, I have arisen, or / am arisen ; I was come, 
or / had come. 

I conclude this part of the subject with a few observa- 
tions concerning the subjunctive or potential mood. 

Various disputes have arisen respecting the existence 
and the use of this mood ; nor is there, perhaps, any other 
point in grammar, on which respectable authorities are so 
much divided. 

That there is not in English, as in Latin, a potential 
mood properly so called, appears to me unquestionable. 



136 ETYMOLOGY. 

Amarem signifies ability or liberty,* involving the verbs 
possum and licet, and may therefore be termed a potential 
mood ; but in English these accessary circumstances are 
denoted by the preterites of the verbs may and can; as, 
/ might or could love. 

That there is no subjunctive mood we have, I conceive, 
equal authority to assert. If I say in Latin, cum cepisset, 
" when he had taken," the verb is strictly in the subjunc- 
tive mode; for, were not the verb subjoined to cum, it 
must have taken the indicative form ; but I hesitate not to 
assert, that no example can be produced in English, where 
the indicative form is altered merely because the verb 
is preceded by some conjunctive particle. If we say, 
" though he were rich, he would not despise the poor,'" 
was is not here turned into were because subjoined to 
though; for though is joined to the indicative mood, when 
the sentiment requires it ; the verb therefore is not in the 
subjunctive mood. 

In respect to what has been denominated the conditional 
form of the verb, I observe, that the existence of this 
form appears to me highly questionable. My reasons are 
these. 

1st, Several of our grammarians have not mentioned it ; 
among these are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, and the author 
of the British Grammar. 

2dly, Those, who admit it, are not agreed concerning its 
extent. Lowth and Johnson confine it to the present tense, 
while Priestley extends it to the preterite. 

3dly, The example, which Priestley adduces of the con- 
ditional preterite, if thou drew, with a few others, which 
might be mentioned, are acknowledged by himself to be so 
stiff and so harsh, that I am inclined to regard them rather 

* It belongs not to my province to inquire, how amarem came to signify 
I might or could love, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the sub- 
junctive mood. I here take it for granted that amarem does, without an 
ellipsis, signify, I might, could, would, or should love, implying licet, 
possum, volo, debeo. — See Johnsons Comment. 



ETYMOLOGY. 137 

as anomalies, than as constituting an authority for a 
general rule. 

4thly, If then this form be, agreeably to the opinions of 
Lowth and Johnson, confined to the present tense, I must 
say that I have not been able to find a single example, in 
which the present conditional, as it is termed, is anything 
but an ellipsis of the auxiliary verb. 

5thly, Those who admit this mood, make it nothing but 
the plural number of the correspondent indicative tense 
without variation ; as, I love, thou love, he love, &c. Now 
as this is, in fact, the radical form of the verb, or what 
may be deemed the infinitive, as following an auxiliary, it 
forms a presumption that it is truly an infinitive mood, 
the auxiliary being suppressed. 

The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed by 
the following examples. 

" If he say so, it is well," i. e. " if he shall say so." 

" Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, r> (Bible) 
i. e. " though he should slay." 

" Though thou detain me, I will not eat," (Ibid.) i. e. 
" shouldst detain me." 

" If thy brother trespass against thee," (Ibid.) i. e. 
66 should trespass." 

" Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down," 
(Ibid.) i. e. " though he should fall." 

" Remember, that thou keep holy the sabbath day," 
(Ibid.) i. e. " thou shouldst keep." 

There are a few examples in the use of the auxiliaries 
do and have, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, the 
expression appears somewhat uncouth ; but I am per- 
suaded, that a little attention will show, that these exam- 
ples form no exception to this theory. 

" If now thou do prosper my way." — Bible. It is here 
obvious, that the event supposed was future ; the appro- 
priate term, therefore, to express that idea, is either shall 
or will. If the phrase were, " if thou prosper my way," 
it would be universally admitted that the auxiliary is sup- 



138 ETYMOLOGY. 

pressed, thus, " if thou shalt or wilt prosper my way." 
Again, when we say, " if thou do it, I shall be displeased," 
it is equally evident that the auxiliary is understood, thus, 
" if thou shalt do it." Now, if these examples be duly 
considered, and if the import of the verb to do, as formerly 
explained, be remembered, I think it will appear that the 
expression is elliptical, and truly proceeds thus, " if thou 
(shalt) do prosper my way." The same observations are 
applicable to Shakspeare's phraseology, when he says, " if 
thou do pardon, whosoever pray." Again ; when Hamlet 
says, " if damned custom have not brazed it so," it is ob- 
vious that the auxiliary verb may is understood ; for, if the 
expression be cleared of the negative, the insertion of the 
auxiliary creates no uncouthness ; thus, " if damned custom 
may have brazed it so." 

I am therefore inclined to think, that the conditional 
form, unless in the verb to fo, # has no existence in our 
language. 

Though this be not strictly the proper place, I would 
beg the reader's attention to a few additional observations. 

Many writers of classic eminence express future and 
contingent events by the present tense indicative. In col- 
loquial language, or where the other form would render 
the expression stiff and awkward, this practice cannot 
justly be reprehended. But where this is not the case, the 
proper form, in which the note of contingency or futurity 
is either expressed or understood, is certainly preferable. 
Thus, 

" If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I com- 
mand thee, I will rack thee with old cramps." — Shakspeare. 
Better, I think, " if thou shalt neglect or do." 

" If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny 
for the use of the club." — Spectator. Better, " if any 
member absent, or shall absent." 

" If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and imperti- 
nence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it." — Spec- 

* Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain. 



ETYMOLOGY. 139 

tator. Preferably thus, " if the stage become, or shall 
become." 

I observe also, that there is something peculiar and 
deserving attention in the use of the preterite tense. # To 
illustrate the remark, I shall take the following case. A 
servant calls on me for a book ; if I am uncertain whether 
I have it or not, I answer, " if the book be in my library, 
or if / have the book, your master shall be welcome to it :" 
but, if I am certain that I have not the book, I say, " if the 
book were in my library, or if I had the book, it should 
be at your master's service." Here it is obvious, that 
when we use the present tense, it implies uncertainty of 
the fact ; and when we use the preterite, it implies a ne- 
gation of its existence. Thus also, a person at night 
would say to his friend, " if it rain, you shall not go," 
being uncertain at the time whether it did or did not rain ; 
but if, on looking out, he perceived it did not rain, he 
would then say, "if it rained, you should not go," inti- 
mating that it did not rain. 

" Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as 
if they had gyves on." — Shakspeare. Where as if' they 
had implies that " they had not." 

In the same manner, if I say, " I will go, if I can," my 
ability is expressed as uncertain, and its dependent event 
left undetermined. But if I say, " I would go, if I could," 
my inability is expressly implied, and the dependent event 
excluded. Thus also, when it is said, " if I may, I will 
accompany you to the theatre," the liberty is expressed as 
doubtful ; but when it is said, " if I might, I would ac- 
company you," the liberty is represented as not existing. 

In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, the 
conjunction is often omitted, and the order inverted; thus, 
" if I had the book," or " had I the book." " Were I 
Alexander," said Parmenio, " I would accept this offer ;" 
or, " if I were Alexander, I would accept." Were is fre- 
quently used for would be, and had for would have ; as, 

* See Webster's Dissertations, p. 263. 



140 ETYMOLOGY. 

" it were injustice to deny the execution of the law to any 
individual;" that is, "it would be injustice." "Many 
acts, which had been blameable in a peaceable govern- 
ment, were employed to detect conspiracies ;" where had 
is put for ivoidd have.* — Hume's History of England. 

Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding fact 
with hypothesis, or making no distinction between dubi- 
tative and assertive phraseologies. Thus, if we employ 
such expressions as these, " if thou knewest," " though 
he was learned," not only to express the certainty of a 
fact, but likewise to denote a mere hypothesis as opposed 
to fact, we necessarily render the expression ambiguous. 
It is by thus confounding things totally distinct, that 
writers have been betrayed not into ambiguity only, but 
even into palpable errors. In evidence of this, I give 
the following example : " Though he were divinely in- 
spired, and spoke therefore as the oracles of God, with su- 
preme authority ; though he were endowed with super- 
natural powers, and could, therefore, have confirmed the 
truth of what he asserted by miracles ; yet, in compliance 
with the way in which human nature and reasonable crea- 
tures are usually wrought upon, he reasoned." — Atter- 
bury's Sermons. 

Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the super- 
natural powers of Jesus, not as properties or virtues which 
he really did possess, but which, though not possessing 
them, he might be supposed to possess. Now, as his in- 
tention was to ascribe these virtues to Jesus, as truly be- 
longing to him, he should have employed the indicative 
form was, and not were, as in the following sentence : 
" though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor." 
" Though he were rich," would imply the non-existence 
of the attribute ; in other words, " that he was not rich." 

A very little attention would serve to prevent these 
ambiguities and errors. If the attribute be conceived as 

* A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the 
same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as, 

" Impulerat ferro Argolicas fcedare latebras." — Virgil. 



ETYMOLOGY. 141 

unconditionally certain, the indicative form without ellip- 
sis must be employed, as, " I teach," " I had taught,' 1 
" I shall teach." If futurity, hypothesis, or uncertainty, 
be intended, with the concessive term, the auxiliary may 
be either expressed or understood, as perspicuity may re- 
quire, and the taste and judgment of the writer may dic- 
tate ; thus, " if any man teach strange doctrines, he shall 
be severely rebuked." — Bible. In the former clause, the 
auxiliary verb shall is unnecessary, and is therefore, with- 
out impropriety, omitted. " Then hear thou in heaven, 
and forgive the sin of thy servants and of thy people 
Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they 
should walk." — Ibid. In this example the suppression 
of the auxiliary verb is somewhat unfavourable to per- 
spicuity, and renders the clause stiff and awkward. It 
would be better, I think, " thou mayest teach them the 
good way." Harshness indeed, and the appearance of 
affectation, should be particularly avoided. Where there 
is no manifest danger of misconception, the use of the as- 
sertive for the dubitative form is far preferable to those 
starched and pedantic phraseologies which some writers 
are fond of exhibiting. For this reason, such expressions 
as the following appear to me highly offensive : " if thou 
have determined, we must submit;" " unless he have con- 
sented, the writing will be void ;" " if this have been the 
seat of their original formation ;" " unless thou shall speak, 
we cannot determine." The last I consider as truly un- 
grammatical. In such cases, if the dubitative phraseology 
should appear to be preferable, the stiffness and affecta- 
tion here reprehended may frequently be prevented by in- 
serting the note of doubt or contingency. 

I observe farther, that the substitution of as for if when 
the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve to pre- 
vent ambiguity.* Thus, when the ant in the fable says 

* The Latins used si in both cases : and though their poets did not 
attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by 
joining si for quoniam with the indicative mood. 



142 



ETYMOLOGY, 



to the grasshopper who had trifled away the summer in 
singing, " if you sung in summer, dance in winter ;" as 
the first clause, taken by itself, leaves the meaning some- 
what ambiguous, " as you sung" would be the better 
expression. 



IRREGULAR VERBS. 



The general rule for the formation of the preterite 
tense, and the perfect participle, is to add to the present 
the syllable ed, if the verb end with a consonant, or d, if 
it end with a vowel, as, 

Turn, Turned, Turned ; Love, Loved, Loved. 

Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irregular, 
of which I believe the subsequent enumeration to be near- 
ly complete.* 

Perfect Participle. 
Abode 
Been 
Arisen 
Awaked 
Baken r 
Born f 
Borne 
Beaten 
Begun 
Become 

Beheld or beholden J 
Bent r 

* Where r is added, the verb follows also the general rule, 
f Some have excluded bore as the preterite of this verb. We have suf- 
ficient authority, however, for admitting it ; thus, 

11 By marrying her who bore me." — Dryden. 

% Beholden is obsolescent in this sense. 



Present, 


Preterite. 


Abide 




Abode 


Am 




Was 


Arise 




Arose 


Awake 




Awoke r 


Bake 




Baked 


Bear, to ' 


3ring forth Bore or Bare 


Bear, to 


carry 


Bore or Bare 


Beat 




Beat 


Begin 




Began 


Become 




Became 


Behold 




Beheld 


Bend 




Bent r 





ETYMOLOGY. 


1 


Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle 


Bereave 


Bereft r 


Bereft r 


Beseech 


Besought 


Besought 


Bid 


Bade or Bid 


Bidden 


Bind 


Bound 


Bound 


Bite 


Bit 


Bitten, Bit * 


Bleed 


Bled 


Bled 


Blow 


Blew 


Blown 


Break 


Broke or Brake 


Broken *f* 


Breed 


Bred 


Bred 


Bring 


Brought 


Brought 


Build 


Built r 


Built r J 


Burst 


Burst 


Burst 


Buy 


Bought 


Bought 


Can 


Could 




Cast 


Cast 


Cast 


Catch 


Caught r 


Caught r 


Chide 


Chid§ 


Chidden 


Choose 


Chose 


Chosen 


Cleave, to stick 


or Clave r 


Cleaved 


adhere 






Cleave, to split 


Clove, or clave, 
cleft 


or Cloven, or Cleft 


Cling 


Clung 


Clung 


Climb 


Clomb r || 


Climbed 


Clothe 


CladR m 


CladR 



143 



* " So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit."— Pope. 

" There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone." — Taller. 

f Brake seems now obsolescent. 

$ Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the partici- 
ple in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with 
Lowth in receiving builded as the participle as well as built, though it be 
not in such general use. 

§ Chode, which occurs twice m the Bible, is now obsolete. 

|| Lowth has given clomb as the preterite of climb. I can find, how- 
ever, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now 
obsolete. 

% The irregular preterite clad is obsolescent. 



144> 


ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite, 


Perfect Participle 


Come 


Came 


Come 


Cost 


Cost 


Cost 


Crow 


Crew r 


Crowed 


Creep 
Cut 


Crept 
Cut 


Crept 
Cut 


Dare, to venture 


Durst r 


Dared 


Dare, to challenge 


, is regular. 




Deal 


Dealt r 


Dealt r 


Dig 
Do 


Dug R 
Did 


Dug R 
Done 


Draw 


Drew 


Drawn 


Drive 


Drove 


Driven 


Drink 


Drank 


Drunk 


Dwell 


Dwelt r 


Dwelt r 


Eat 


Ate 


Eaten 


Fall 


Fell 


Fallen 


Feed 


Fed 


Fed 


Feel 


Felt 


Felt 


Fight 
Find 


Fought 
Found 


Fought 
Found 


Flee 


Fled 


Fled 


Flie 


Flew 


Flown 


Fling 
Forget 
Forgo * 
Forsake 


Flung 
Forgot 

Forsook 


Flung 
Forgotten 
Forgone 
Forsaken 


Freeze 


Froze 


Frozen 


Freight 
Get 


Freighted 
Gat, or Got 


Freighted, or 
Fraught f 
Gotten, or Got 



* I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would 
be forwent, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in 
violation of analogy, is generally spelled forego, as if it meant " to go 
before." This is equally improper as it would be to write forebid, fore- 
sake, foreswear, for forbid, forsake, forswear. 

\ Fraught is more properly an adjective than participle. 





ETYMOLOGY 


14^ 


Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Gild 


GildR 


GiltR 


Gird 


GirtR 


GirtR 


Give 


Gave 


Given 


Go 


Went 


Gone 


Grave 


Graved 


Graven r 


Grind 


Ground 


Ground 


Grow 


Grew 


Grown 


Have 


Had 


Had 


Hang * 


HungR 


Hung r 


Hear 


Heard 


Heard 


Heave 


Hove -f* r 


Hoven r 


Help 


Helped 


Holpen J r 


Hew 


Hewed 


HewnR 


Hide 


Hid 


Hidden, § or Hid 


Hit 


Hit 


Hit 


Hold 


Held 


Holden, || or Held 


Hurt 


Hurt 


Hurt 


Keep 


Kept 


Kept 


Kneel 


Knelt 


Knelt 



* This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, " may, 
perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form/' Here the learned 
author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have ex- 
pressed his meaning incorrectly ; for it cannot be disputed that the irre- 
gular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, 
used in an active sense. Thus we say, " the servant hung the scales in 
the cellar ;" and passively, " the scales were hung by the servant.'' I 
should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for 
the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, 
" the man was hanged," not " hung." 

f The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in 
sea language ; but the latter rarely. 

\ Lowth has given holpen as the participle ; it is now obsolescent, if 
not obsolete. It belonged to the verb to holp, which has been long out 
of use. 

§ Several grammarians have rejected hid as a participle. It rests, 
however, on unquestionable authority ; but hidden is preferable. 

|| Holden, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning 
into more general use. 

L 



146 


ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Knit 


Knit, or knitted 


Knit, or Knitted 


Know 


Knew 


Known 


Lade 


Laded 


Laden # 


Lay 
Lead 


Laid 
Led 


Laidf 
Led 


Leave 


Left 


Left 


Lend 


Lent 


Lent 


Let 


Let 


Let 


Lie, to lie down 


Lay 


Lien, or Lain \ 


Lift 


Lifted, or Lift 


Lifted, or Lift 


Light 
Load 


Lighted, or Lit § 
Loaded 


Lighted, or Lit 
Loaden,or Load* 


Lose 


Lost 


Lost 


Make 


Made 


Made 


May 
Mean 


Might 
Meant r 


Meant r 


Meet 


Met 


Met 


Mow 


Mowed 


Mown || r 


Must 






Pay 
Put 


Paid 
Put 


Paid 
Put 


Quit 
Read 


Quit, or Quitted ^[ Quit 
Read Read 


Rend 


Rent 


Rent 



* Laden, like fraught, maybe deemed an adjective. 

f Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving lain as the participle of 
this verb. 

% Lien, though not so generally used as lain, is not destitute of unex- 
ceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given 
it as the participle. Murray has omitted it. 

§ Some grammarians have rejected lit. It can plead, however, collo- 
quial usage in its favour, and even other authority. " I lit my pipe with 
the paper." — Addison. 

|| With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular parti- 
ciple ; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing 
the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it. 

IT Quitted is far more generally used as the preterite than quit. 



Present. 



Ride 
Rid 

Ring 

Rise 

Rive 

Roast 

Rot 

Run 

Saw 

Say 

See 

Seek 

Seethe 

Sell 

Send 

Set 

Shake 

Shall 

Shape 

Shave 

Shear 

Shed 

Shine 



ETYMOLOGY. 


14> 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Rode, or 


Rid 


Rid, # or Ridden 


Rid 




Rid 


Rang, or 


Rung 


Rung 


Rose 




Risen 


Rived 




Riven 


Roasted 




Roasted, or Roasti 


Rotted 




Rotten r 


Ran 




Run 


Sawed 




Sawn r 


Said 




Said 


Saw 




Seen 


Sought 




Sought 


Seethed, or Sod 


Sodden 


Sold 




Sold 


Sent 




Sent 


Set 




Set 


Shook 




Shaken J 


Should 






Shaped 




Shapen r 


Shaved 




Shaven r 


Shore 




Shorn 


Shed 




Shed 


Shone r 




Shone r 



* Priestley has rejected rid, and Murray ridden, as the participle, 
while Johnson makes rid the preterite of ride. As rid is the present and 
preterite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it 
entirely from the verb to ride, and conjugate, with Priestley, ride, rode) 
ridden. 

f Our translators of the Bible have used roast as the perfect participle. 
In this sense it is almost obsolete. Roast beef retains its ground. 

X Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the 
participle of this verb should be shaked. This word is certainly obsolete, 
and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only 
one example of shaked as the participle, "A sly and constant knave, not 
to be shaked." — Shakspeare. And two as the preterite, " They shaked 
their heads." — Psal. cxi. 25. "I shaked my head." — Steele, Spectator, 
No. iv. 

L 2 



148 

Present. 

Shew 

Show 

Shoe 

Shoot 

Shrink 

Shred 

Shut 

Sing 

Sink ' 

Sit 

Slay 

Sleep 

Slide 

Sling 

Slink 

Slit 

Smite 

Sow 

Speak 

Speed 

Spend 



ETYMOLOGY. 




Preterite. 


Perfect Participle 


Shewed 


Shewn 


Showed 


Shown 


Shod 


Shod 


Shot 


Shot 


Shrank # or Shrunk Shrunk 


Shred 


Shred 


Shut 


Shut 


Sang, -J* or Sung 


Sung 


Sank, or Sunk 


Sunk 


Sat 


Sitten, I or Sat 


Slew 


Slain 


Slept 


Slept 


Slid 


Slidden 


Slang, or Slung 


Slung 


Slank, or Slunk 


Slunk 


Slit r 


Slit, or Slitted 


Smote 


Smitten 


Sowed 


Sown r 


Spoke, or Spake 


Spoken 


Sped 


Sped 


Spent 


Spent 



* Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our 
translators of the Bible used the former. 

+ A. Murray has rejected sung as the preterite, and L. Murray has re- 
jected sang. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority. 

The same observation may be made respecting sank and sunk. 

$ Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable 
attempts, however, have been made to restore it. " To have sitten on 
the heads of the apostles." — Middleton. 

" Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which bad 
now sitten three years, &c." — Belshani's Hist. 

" And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together 
the same parliament, which had sitten under his father." — Hume, vol. vi. 
p. 199. 

Respecting the preterites which have a or u, as slang, or slung, sank, 
or sunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the pre- 
terite and participle would thus be discriminated. 





ETYMOLOGY. 


149 


Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Spill 

Spin 

Spit 

Split 

Spread 

Spring 

Stand 


Spilt r Spilt r 
Spun, or Span Spun 
Spat, or Spit Spitten, or Spit 
Split, or Splitted Split, Splitted 
Spread Spread 
Sprang, or Sprung Sprung 
Stood Stood 


Steal 


Stole 


Stolen 


Stick 


Stuck 


Stuck 


Sting 
Stink 


Stung 

Stank, or Stunk 


Stung 
Stunk 


Stride 


Strode, or Strid 


Stridden 


Strike 


Struck 


Struck, or Stricken 


String 
Strive 


Strung 
Strove 


Strung 
Striven 


Strew, or 
Strow 


Strewed, or ) 
Strowed ) 


Strown 


Swear 


Swore, or Sware 


Sworn 


Sweat 


Sweat 


Sweat 


Sweep 
Swell 


Swept 
Swelled 


Swept 

Swelled, or Swollen 


Swim 


Swam, or Swum 


Swum 


Swing 
Take 


Swang 
Took 


Swung 
Taken 


Teach 
Tear 


Taught 
Tore, or Tare 


Taught 
Torn 


Tell 


Told 


Told 


Think 
Thrive 


Thought 
Throve * 


Thought 
Thriven 



* Pope has used the regular form of the preterite : 

"In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, 
Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase." 

Essay on Crit. 

Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular par- 
ticiple. 



150 

Present. 

Throw 

Thrust 

Tread 

Wax 

Wash 

Wear 

Weave 

Weep 

Will 

Win 

Wind 

Work 

Wring 

Write 

Writhe 



ETYMOLOGY. 




Preterite. 


Perfect Participle 


Threw 


Thrown 


Thrust 


Thrust 


Trod 


Trodden 


Waxed 


Waxen r 


Washed 


Washed # 


Wore 


Worn 


Wove 


Woven 


Wept 


Wept 


Would 




Won 


Won 


Wound Rf 


Wound 


Wrought r 


Wrought r 


Wrung r 


Wrung 


Wrote 


Written J 


Writhed 


Writhen. 



DEFECTIVE VERBS. 



These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defec- 
tive but also irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary verbs. 



Perfect Participle. 



Present. 


Prete 


Must 




May 


Might 


Quoth 


Quoth 


Can 


Could 


Shall 


Should 



* Washen seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound unwashen 
occurs in our translation of the Bible. 

f Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used ivinded as the pre- 
terite. The other form, however, is in far more general use. 

% Wrote, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise writ. 
The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of 
the same period. 



ETYMOLOGY. 151 

Present. Preterite. Perfect Participle. 

Wit,* or Wot Wot 

Will f Would 

Wis + Wist 
Ought § 

* Wit is now confined to the phrase to wit, or namely. It is an abbre- 
viation from the Anglo-Saxon verb pifcan, to know. 

f This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible ; thus we say, " he will go," 
and " he wills to go." 

I This verb, which signifies " to think," or " to imagine," is now 
obsolete. 

§ This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was origi- 
nally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verb to owe ; and is 
corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. " Apprehend- 
ing the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and 
besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought 
you." — Spelman. 

" This blood, which men by treason sought, 
That followed, sir, which to myself I ought." — Dryden. 

It is now used in the present tense only ; and, when past duty or obli- 
gation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time 
by the preterite tense of the subsequent verb ; thus, " I ought to read," 
" I ought to have read." The classical scholar knows that the reverse 
takes place in Latin. Debeo legere, debui legere. Cicero, however, 
though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the 
preterite tense of this verb. 

Murray has told us, that must and ought have both a present and past 
signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples: — 
et I must own, that I am to blame." "He must have been mistaken." 
"Speaking thiugs which they ought not." "These ought ye to have 
done." This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. 
Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must in- 
tuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, 
than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely re- 
quires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, 
in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by must and ought, 
but by the expressions " have been" and " have done." In Latin, as I 
have just observed, necessity and duty are expressed as either present, 
past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent 
tenses; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contem- 
porary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs 



152 ETYMOLOGY. 



OF IMPERSONAL VERBS. 

The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been 
a subject of endless dispute among grammarians. Some 
deny their existence in the learned languages, and others 
as positively assert it. Some define them to be verbs de- 
void of the two first persons ; but this definition is evi- 
dently incorrect : for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus ob- 
serve, this may be a reason for calling them defective, but 
not for naming them impersonal verbs. Others have 
defined them to be verbs, to which no certain person, as 
the subject, can be prefixed. But with the discussion of 
this question, as it respects the learned languages, the 
English grammarian has no concern. I proceed, there- 
fore, to observe, that impersonal verbs, as the name im- 
ports, are those which do not admit a person as their 
nominative. Their real character seems to be, that they 
assert the existence of some action or state, but refer it to 
no particular subject. In English we have very few im- 
personal verbs. To this denomination, however, may cer- 
tainly be referred, it behoveth, it irketh ; equivalent to, it 
is the duty, it is painfully wearisome. That the former of 
these verbs was once used personally, we have sufficient 
evidence ; and it is not improbable that the latter also was 
so employed, though I have not been able to find an ex- 
ample of its junction with a person. They are now inva- 

must and ought having only the present tense, we are obliged to note the 
past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, 
Me ire oportet, "I ought to go," "I must go." Me ire oportuit,"! 
ought to have gone," " I must have gone." As well may it be affirmed, 
that the past time is denoted by he and not oportuit, as that it is signified 
by must and not by " have gone." 

In the time of Wallis, the term must, as a preterite tense, was almost 
obsolete. " Aliquando" he remarks, " sed rarius in praterito dkitur." 
And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present 
tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense. 



ETYMOLOGY. 153 

riably used as impersonal verbs. We cannot say, I behove, 
thou behovest, he behoves ; we irk, ye irk, they irk. 

There are one or two others, which have been considered 
as impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the 
objective case is prefixed to the third person singular of the 
verb, as, methinks, methought, meseems, meseemed; analo- 
gous to the Latin expressions me pxnitet, me poznituit. 
You thinketh, him liketh, him seemeth, have long been 
entirely obselete. Meseems and meseemed occur in Sidney, 
Spenser, and other contemporary writers; but are now 
universally disused. Addison sometimes says methoughts, 
contrary, I conceive, to all analogy. 



154 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER VII. 

OF ADVERBS. 

An adverb is that part of speech which is joined to a 
verb, adjective, or other adverb, to express some circum- 
stance, quality, degree, or manner of its signification ; and 
hence adverbs have been termed attributives of the second 
order. 

" As the attributives hitherto mentioned," says Mr. 
Harris, il viz. adjective and verb, denote the attributes of 
substances, so there is an inferior class of them, which de- 
note the attributes only of attributes. If I say, ' Cicero was 
eloquent,' I ascribe to him the attribute of eloquence simply 
and absolutely ; if I say, ' he was exceedingly eloquent,' I 
affirm an eminent degree of eloquence, the adverb exceed- 
ingly denoting that degree. If I say, ' he died, fighting 
bravely for his country ,' the word bravely here added to 
the verb denotes the manner of the action." An adverb 
is, therefore, a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, 
to denote some modification, degree, or circumstance, of 
the expressed attribute. 

Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, 
according to their signification. Some of those which 
denote 

Quality, simply are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly, 
with innumerable others formed from 
adjectives and participles. 

Certainty or ) Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes, 

Affirmation $ certainly. 

Contingence Perhaps, perad venture, perchance. 

Negation Nay, no, not, nowise. 

Explaining Namely. 

Separation Apart, separately, asunder. 



ETYMOLOGY. 



155 



Conjunction 
Indication 
Interrogation 
Excess or Pre- 
eminence 
Defect 
Preference 
Likeness or 
Equality 
Unlikeness or 
Inequality 
Abatement or 

Gradation 
To or in a place 
To a place, only. 
Towards a 'place 
From a place 
Time present 

past 

future 

Repetition of 
times indef 
Definitely 
Order 
Quantity 



Together, generally, universally. 

Lo. 

Why, wherefore, when, how. 
) Very, exceedingly, too, more, better, 
S worse, best, worst. 

Almost, nearly, less, least. 

Rather, chiefly, especially. 

/ So, thus, as, equally. 



? Else, otherwise. 



> Piecemeal, scarcely, hardly. 

Here, there, where. 

Hither, thither, whither. 

Hither ward, thitherward, whitherward. 

Hence, thence, whence. 

Now, to-day. 
C Yesterday, before, heretofore, already, 
\ hitherto, lately. 

S To-morrow, hereafter, presently, im- 
mediately, afterwards. 

? Often, seldom, frequently. 

Once, twice, thrice, again. 
First,* secondly, thirdly, &c. 
Much, little, enough, sufficiently. 

On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of ad- 
verbs, it will appear, that most of them are abbreviations 
or contractions for two or more words. Thus, bravely, 
or " in a brave manner," is probably derived by abbre- 
viation from brave-like, wisely from wise-like, happily 
from happy -like. "f Mr. Tooke, indeed, has proved, as I 

* Firstly is used by some writers. 

f Denominativa terminantur in lie vel lice, ut penlic virilis, selic legi- 
timus, raelic marinus, piflic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie 
mutavimus in like vel It/, ut in godlike vel godly. Hickesii Thes. 

The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gil- 



156 ETYMOLOGY. 

conceive, incontrovertibly, that most of them are either 
corruptions of other words, or abbreviations of phrases or 
of sentences. One thing is certain, that the adverb is not 
an indispensable part of speech, as it serves merely to ex- 
press in one word what perhaps would otherwise require 
two or more words. Thus, 



Where * 


denotes 


In what place 


Here 




In this place 


There 




In that place 


Whither 




To what place 


Hither 




To this place 


Thither 




To that place. 



christ, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will 
fail " in nine times out of ten." In the expressions " weekly wages," 
" daily labour," " yearly income," he observes, that the meaning cannot 
be, " wages like a week/' " labour like a day," lt income like a year." 
He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination lie 
to be the same with lig in the Latin verb ligo, " to tie," or " join," and 
to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as, " a friendly 
part," " a friend's part," " yearly produce," " year's produce." Though 
a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to 
Mr. Gilchrist's exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by 
Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten ; we candidly acknowledge, that 
in many instances it is inadmissible ; and that Mr. Gilchrist's suggestion 
is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the 
same objection, as he urges against Hickes's explanation. Nor does it 
appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist's argument subverts the doctrine gene- 
rally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes 
supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced 
similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be 
regarded. Thus the term candidly, which we have just now used, was 
probably introduced, in conformity to analogy, with no reference what- 
ever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, 
that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis that 
ly is a mere term of conjunction. 

* These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are fre- 
quently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to 
a place, in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be 
better, however, were the distinction observed. The French use id for 
here and hither, la for there and thither, oil for where and whither. 



ETYMOLOGY. 157 



CHAPTER VIII. 



OF PREPOSITIONS. 



A preposition has been defined to be " that part of 
speech which shows the relation that one thing bears to 
another." According to Mr. Harris, it is a part of speech 
devoid itself of signification, but so formed as to unite 
words that are significant, and that refuse to unite or 
associate of themselves. He has, therefore, compared 
them to pegs or pins, which serve to unite those parts of 
the building which would not, by their own nature, in- 
corporate or coalesce. When one considers the formid- 
able objections which present themselves to this theory, 
and that the ingenious author now quoted has, in defence 
of it, involved himself in palpable contradictions, it be- 
comes matter of surprise that it should have so long re- 
ceived from grammarians an almost universal and implicit 
assent. This furnishes one of many examples, how easily 
error may be imposed and propagated by the authority of 
a great name. But, though error may be repeatedly 
transmitted from age to age, unsuspected and unques- 
tioned, it cannot be perpetuated. Mr. Home Tooke has 
assailed this theory by irresistible arguments, and demon- 
strated, that in our language at least, prepositions are 
significant of ideas, and that, as far as import is concern- 
ed, they do not form a distinct species of words. 

It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the 
formation of any language, would invent words insigni- 
ficant, and to which, singly, they attached no determi- 
nate idea ; especially when it is considered, that, in every 
stage of their existence, from rudeness to civilization, new 



158 ETYMOLOGY. 

words would perpetually be wanting to express new ideas. 
It is not, therefore, probable that, while they were under 
the necessity of framing new words, to answer the exi- 
gences of mental enlargement, and while these demands 
on their invention were incessantly recurring, they would, 
in addition to this, encumber themselves with the idle 
and unnecessary task of forming new words to express 
nothing. 

But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when he 
says, that prepositions, when compounded, transfuse some- 
thing of their meaning into the compound ; for they can- 
not transfuse what they do not contain, nor impart what 
they do not possess. They must, therefore, be themselves 
significant words. 

But it is not so much their meaning with which the 
grammarian is concerned, as their syntactical character, 
their capacity of affecting other words, or being affected 
by them. In both these lights, however, I purpose to 
consider them. 

The name of preposition has been assigned to them, 
because they generally precede their regimen, or the word 
which they govern. What number of these words an- 
cient and modern languages contain, has been much dis- 
puted ; some grammarians determining a greater and some 
a less number. This, indeed, of itself affords a conclusive 
proof that the character of these words has not been 
clearly understood; for, in the other parts of speech, 
noun, adjective, and verb, the discriminative circumstances 
are so evident, that no doubt can arise concerning their 
classification. 

That most of our English prepositions have significa- 
tion per se, and form no distinct species of words, Mr. 
Tooke has produced incontrovertible evidence ; nor is it 
to be doubted, that a perfect acquaintance with the 
Northern languages would convince us, that all of them 
are abbreviations, corruptions, or combinations of other 
words. A few of Mr. Tooke's examples I shall now pre- 
sent to the reader. 



ETYMOLOGY. 159 

Above, from the Anglo-Saxon ufa, high ; hence bufan, 
on bufan, bove, above. 

With 9 from withan, to join, of which with is the impe- 
rative ; thus, " a house with a party wall" — " a 
house, join sl party wall ;" or it is sometimes the im- 
perative of wyrthan, " to be ;" hence, by and with 
are often synonymous, the former being derived 
from beon, " to be." 

Without, from the Saxon preposition withutan, extra, 
sine, which is properly the imperative of the verb 
wyrthan-utan, " to be out," Withutan, beutan, 
" without," " be out," or " but." The Saxon pre- 
position occurs frequently in the writings of Chau- 
cer, and is still used in Scottish poetry.* 

From,f is simply the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic noun 
frum, " beginning," " source," " origin ;" thus, 
" Figs came from Turkey ;" that is, Figs came ; 
" the source," or " beginning," Turkey ; to which 
is opposed the word 

To, the same originally as do, signifying finishing or 

* For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn 
Had sae allur'd them i' the morn, 
That, what wi' drams, and mony a horn, 

And reaming bicker, 
The ferly is, withouten scorn, 
They wauk'd sae sicker. 

Mayne's Siller Gun. 

This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by 
every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author 
is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the 
superiority. 

This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived from forth, 
or rather to be a different form of that word. See his " Philosophic Ety- 
mology/' a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological 
knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions. 

f It is possible that the Greek a7 ro, and the Latin ah derived from it, 
had their origin in ^ pater, principium, " author," or " principle of ex- 
istence.'' 



160 ETYMOLOGY. 

completion ; thus, " Figs came from Turkey to 
England ;" " the beginning," or " source,'* Tur- 
key ; " the finishing," or " end," England. 

Beneath, is the imperative be, compounded with the 
noun neath, of the same import with neden in Dutch, 
ned in Danish, niedere in German, and nedre or 
neder in Swedish, signifying the lower place ; hence, 
the astronomical term Nadir, opposed to Zenith. 
Hence also nether and nethermost. 

Between, " be twain," " be two," or "be separated." * 

Before, ^ 

Behind, I Imperative be, and the nouns fore, hind, 

Beside, C side, low. 

Below, J 

Under, i. e. on neder. 

Beyond, imperative be, and the participle past goned of 
the verb gan, " to go ;" as, " beyond the place," i. e. 
" be passed the place." 

Among, from gemong, the preterperfect of the verb 
mengan, to mix, used as a participle, and signify- 
ing " mixed." 

Many other examples might be produced from Tooke's 
ingenious illustration of his theory; but those which I 
have now offered suffice to prove, that our prepositions, 
so far from being words insignificant, belong to the class 
of nouns or verbs either single or compounded. 

Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris ad- 
mits, it is surely absurd to suppose, that they have no 
meaning; for the relation, whether of propinquity, con- 
tiguity, approach, or regress, &c. may be expressed, and 
apprehended by the mind, though the objects between 
which the relation subsists be not specified. If I hear the 
word with, I naturally conceive the idea of conjunction ; 
the reverse takes place when I hear without. If it be said 

* The verb, " to twin," is still used in Scotland for " to part," or 
" separate." 



ETYMOLOGY. 



161 



a soldier with, I have the idea of a soldier associated with 
something else, which association is denoted by with. 
What is conjoined to him I know not, till the object be 
specified, as, " a soldier with a musquet ;" but the mere 
association was before sufficiently expressed, and clearly 
apprehended. Again, if a person say, " he threw a glass 
under" I have instantly an idea of a glass, and of inferi- 
ority of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation 
lower than something else. To ascertain that something, 
I ask, under what? and the answer may be, under the 
table. Now, if under had no meaning, this question would 
be insignificant, or rather impossible. 

From the examples given, I trust, the young reader 
sufficiently understands the difference between the doctrine 
of Harris on this subject, and that of Home Tooke ; nay, 
I think, he must perceive, that the former is merely a 
theory, while the latter is supported by reason and fact. 
The syntax of our prepositions will be afterwards explained. 
I shall only observe at present, that the words which are 
in English considered as prepositions, and joined to the 
objective case, are these : 



Above 


Behind 


About 


Beneath 


After 


Below 


Against 


Beside 


Among | 
Amongst j 


By 


Down 


Amid \ 
Amidst ) 


For 


From 


Around ) 
Round $ 


In 


Into 


At 


Near ) 
Nigh 5 


Between | 


Betwixt S 


Of 


Beyond 


Off 


Before 


Over 



162 



ETYMOLOGY. 



On | 

Upon 5 
Since 

Through "I 
Throughout ) 
Till . 
Until f 
To i 
Unto 5 



Toward * 
Towards j 
Under ) 

Underneath 5 
Up 
With 
Within 
Without 



Some of these, though they are commonly joined to an 
objective case, and may therefore be deemed prepositions, 
are, notwithstanding, of an equivocal character, resembling 
the Latin adverbs procul and prope, which govern a case 
by the ellipsis of a preposition. Thus we say, u near the 
house 11 and "near to the house, 11 " nigh the parkland 
" nigh to the park, 11 " off the table " and " off from the 
table. 11 

Several are used as adverbs, and also as prepositions, no 
ellipsis being involved, as, till, until, after, before. 

There are certain particles, which are never found single 
or uncompounded, and have therefore been termed insepa- 
rable prepositions. Those purely English are, a, be, fore, 
mis, un. The import of these, and of a few separable 
prepositions when prefixed to other words, I proceed to 
explain. 

A, signifies on or in, as, afoot, a shore, that is, on foot, 
on shore. Webster contends, that it was originally 
the same with one. 

Be, signifies about, as, bestir, besprinkle, that is, stir 
about ; also for or before, as, bespeak, that is, speak 
for, or before. 

For, denies, or deprives, as, bid, forbid, seek, forsake, 
i. e. bid, bid not ; seek, not seek. 

Fore, signifies before, as, see, foresee, that is, see before- 
hand. 



ETYMOLOGY. 103 

Mis, denotes defect or error, as, take, mistake' or take 
wrongly ; deed, misdeed, that is, a wrong or evil 
deed. 

Over, denotes eminence or superiority, as, come, over- 
come ; also excess, as, hasty, over hasty, or too 
hasty. 

Out, signifies excess or superiority, as, do, outdo, run, 
outrun, that is, " to surpass in running." 

Un, before an adjective, denotes negation, or privation, 
as, worthy, unworthy, or " not worthy." Before 
verbs it denotes the undoing or the destroying of 
the energy or act, expressed by the verb, as, say, 
unsay, that is, " affirm," retract the " affirmation." 

Up, denotes motion upwards, as, start, upstart ; rest in a 
higher place, as, hold, uphold; sometimes subver- 
sion, as, set, upset. 

With, signifies against, as, stand, withstand, that is, 
" stand against, or resist." 

The Latin prepositions used in the composition of Eng- 
lish words are these, ab or abs, ad, ante, con, circum, contra, 
de, di, dis, e or ex, extra, in, inter, intro, ob, per, post, prce, 
pro, prater, re, retro, se, sub, subter, super, trans. 

A, ab, abs, signify from or away, as, to abstract, that is, 
" to draw away." 

Ad, signifies to or at, as, to adhere, that is, " to stick 
to." 

Ante, means before, as, antecedent, that is, " going 
before." 

Circum, round, about, as, circumnavigate, or " sail 
round." 

Con, com, co, col, signify together, as, convoke, or " call 
together," co-operate, or " work together," colleague, 
" joined together." 

Contra, against, as, contradict, or " speak against." 

Be, signifies down, as, deject, or " throw down." 

Di, dis, asunder, as, distract, or " draw asunder." 

m 2 



164 ETYMOLOGY. 

E, ex, out of, as, egress, or " going out," eject, or 
" throw out," exclude, or u shut out."" 

Extra, beyond, as, extraordinary, or " beyond the ordi- 
nary or usual course. ,, 

In, before an adjective, like un, denotes privation, as, 
active, inactive, or " not active ;" before a verb, it 
has its simple meaning. 

Inter, between, as, intervene, or " come between,' 1 inter- 
pose, or " put between." 

Intro, to within, as, introduce, or " lead in." 

Ob, denotes opposition, as, obstacle, that is, " something 
standing in opposition," " an impediment." 

Per, through, or thoroughly, as, perfect, or " thoroughly 
done," to perforate, or " to bore through." 

Post, after, as, postscript, or " written after," that is, 
after the letter. 

Pr&, before, as, prefix, or "fix before." 

Pro, forth, or forwards, as, promote, or " move for- 
wards." 

Prater, past, or beyond, as, preternatural, or " beyond 
the course of nature." 

.Re, again, or 6#c/c, as, retake, or " take back." 

Retro, backwards, as, retrograde, or " going back- 
wards." 

&e, apart, or without, as, £o secrete, " to put aside," 
or " to hide," secure, " without care or apprehen- 
sion." 

Subter, under, as, subterfluous, or " flowing under." 

Super, above, or over, as, superscribe, or " write above, 
or over." 

Trans, over, from one place to another, as, transport, 
that is, " carry over." 

The Greek prepositions and particles compounded with 
English words are, a, amphi, anti, hyper, hypo, meta, 
peri, syn. 

A, signifies privation, as, anonymous, or " without a 
name." 






ETYMOLOGY. 165 

Amphi, both, or the two, as, amphibious, " having both 
lives," that is, " on land and on water." 

Anti, against, as, anti-covenanter, anti-jacobin, that is, 
" an opponent of the covenanters," " an enemy to 
the jacobins." 

Hyper, over and above, as, hypercritical, or " over," 
that is, " too critical." 

Hypo, under, implying concealment or disguise, as, hy- 
pocrite, " one dissembling his real character." 

Meta denotes change or transmutation, as, to metamor- 
phose, or " to change the shape." 

Para denotes sometimes propinquity or similarity, and 
sometimes contrariety. It is equivalent to the 
Latin terms juxta and prater, as, " to paraphrase," 
Trugcitpgcigew, juxta alterius orationem loqui ; " to 
speak the meaning of another." Paradox, " be- 
yond," or " contrary to, general opinion," or "com- 
mon belief." 

Peri, round about, as, periphrasis, that is, " circumlo- 
cution." 

Syn, together, as, synod, " a meeting," or " coming to- 
gether," sympathy, or " feeling together." 



166 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER IX. 



OF CONJUNCTIONS. 



A conjunction has been defined to be " that part of 
speech which connects words and sentences together." 

Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians, have 
asserted, that conjunctions never connect words, but sen- 
tences. This is evidently a mistake ; for if I say, cs a 
man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character,'' it im- 
plies not " that a man of wisdom is a perfect character, 
and a man of virtue a perfect character, 1 ' but " a man who 
combines wisdom and virtue." The farther discussion of 
this question, however, I shall at present postpone, as it 
will form a subject of future inquiry. 

Conjunctions have been distributed, according to their 
significations, into different classes : 

Copulative, And, also, but (bot). 

Disjunctive, Either, or. 

Concessive, Though, although, albeit, yet. 

Adversative, But, however. 

"Exclusive, Neither, nor. 

Causal, For, that, because, since. 

Illative, Therefore, wherefore, then. 

Conditional, If. 

Exceptive, Unless. 

This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, in 
conformity to general usage, that the reader may be ac- 
quainted with the common terms by which conjunctions 
have been denominated, if these terms should occur to 
him in the course of reading. In respect to the real im- 



ETYMOLOGY. 16T 

port, and genuine character of these words, I decidedly 
adopt the theory of Mr. Tooke, which considers conjunc- 
tions as no distinct species of words, but as belonging to 
the class of attributives, or as abbreviations for two or more 
significant words. 

Agreeably to his theory, and is an abbreviation for 
anad, the imperative of ananad, " to add," or " to accu- 
mulate;" as, " two and two make four ;" that is, " two, 
add two, make four." Either is evidently an adjective 
expressive of " one of two ;" thus, " it is either day or 
night," that is, " one of the two, day or night." It 
is derived from the Saxon cegther, equivalent to uterque, 
" each."* 

Or is a contraction for other, a Saxon and English ad- 
jective equivalent to alius or alter, and denotes diversity, 
either of name or of subject. Hence or is sometimes a 
perfect disjunctive, as when it expresses contrariety or op- 
position of things ; and sometimes a subdisjunctive, when 
it denotes simply a diversity in name. Thus, when we 
say, " It is either even or odd," or is a perfect disjunctive, 
the two attributives being directly contrary, and admitting 
no medium. If I say, " Paris or Alexander " (these be- 
ing names of the same individual) ; or if I say, " Gravity or 
weight," " Logic, or the art of reasoning ;" or in these ex- 
amples is a subdisjunctive or an explicative, as it serves to 
define the meaning of the preceding term, or as it ex- 
presses the equivalence of two terms. The Latins express 
the former by aut, vel, and the latter by seu or sive. In 
the following sentence both conjunctions are exemplified: 
" Give me either the black or the white ;" i. e. " Give me 
one of the two — the black — other, the white." 

* That the Saxon word agther signified each, is sufficiently evident 
from a variety of examples ; and the adjective either has continued to be 
used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did 
not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equi- 
valent to each : and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him 
in thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to "one of two." 
The reason will be assigned hereafter. 



168 ETYMOLOGY. 

To these are opposed neither, nor, as, " Give me neither 
poverty nor riches ;" i. e. " Give me not one of the two. 
poverty — nor, i. e. not the other, riches." 

According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunction if is the 
imperative of the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verb gifan, 
" to give." Among others, he quotes the following ex- 
ample. " How will the weather dispose of you to-mor- 
row ? If fair, it will send me abroad ; if foul, it will 
keep me at home." — i. e. " give," or " grant it to be 
fair ;" " give," or " grant it to be foul." 

Though is the same as thaf, an imperative from thaf an, 
to allow, and is in some parts of the country pronounced 
thof ; as x " Though he should speak truth, I would not 
believe him;" i. e. " allow or grant, what? he should 
speak truth," or " allow his speaking truth, I would not 
believe him." 

But, from beutan, the imperative of beon titan, to be 
out, is the same as without or unless, there being no dif- 
ference between these in respect to meaning. Gramma- 
rians, however, in conformity to the distinction between 
nisi and sine, have called but a conjunction, and without 
a preposition. But, therefore, being a word signifying 
exception or exclusion, I have not termed it an " adver- 
sative," as most grammarians have, but an " exceptive." 
In this sense it is synonymous with prater, preterquam, or 
nisi ; thus, " I saw nobody but John," i. e. " unless," or 
" except John." 

But, from bot, the imperative of botan, to boot or su- 
peradd, has a very different meaning. This word was ori- 
ginally written bot, and was thus distinguished from but.* 
They are now written alike, which tends to create confu- 
sion. The meaning of this word is, " add," or " more- 
over." This interpretation is confirmed by the probable 
derivation and meaning of synonymous words in other 
languages. Thus, the French mais (but) is from majus, 
or magis, " more," or " in addition ;" the Italian ma, the 
* Bot ser that Virgil standis but compare. — Gaivin Douglass. 



ETYMOLOGY. 169 

Spanish mas, and the Dutch maar, are from the same 
etymon, signifying " more." And it is not improbable, 
that adsit (be it present, or be it added) by contraction 
became ast and at; thus, adsit, adst, ast, at. In this 
sense but is synonymous with at, autem, caterum, " more- 
over," or " in addition." 

It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that hot or but 
allays or mitigates a good or a bad precedent, by the ad- 
dition of something ; for botan means " to superadd," " to 
supply," " to atone for," " to compensate," " to add some- 
thing more," " to make amends," or " make up defi- 
ciency." Thus, 

" Once did I lay an ambush for your life, 
A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul, 
But (bot) ere I last received the sacrament 
I did confess" Richard II. 

" Add (this) ere I last received." 

When but means be out, or without, it should, says Mr. 
Tooke, be preceded by a negative; thus, instead of saying, 
" I saw but John," which means, " I saw John be out," 
we should say, " I saw none but John," i. e. " none, John 
be out," or " had John been out," or " John being exclud- 
ed." This, observes the ingenious author, is one of the 
most faulty ellipses in our language, and could never have 
obtained, but through the utter ignorance of the meaning 
of the word but (bot). 

Yet, from the imperative of getan, " to get." 

Still, from stell or steall, the imperative of stellan, 
ponere, " to suppose." 

Home Tooke observing that these words, like if and an*, 

* An occurs frequently for if in the earliest English writers. Bacon 
frequently uses it in this sense. " Fortune is to be honoured and re- 
spected, an it be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation." 
"And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set 
their house on fire, an it were, but to roast their eggs/ 7 — Bacons Essays, 
Civ. and Mor. In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly 
spelled and. An for if is still retained in our address to royalty, An y t 
please, your majesty : and in Scotland is in general use. 



170 ETYMOLOGY. 

are synonymous, accounts for their equivalence by sup- 
posing them to be derived from verbs of the same import. 
His mode of derivation, however, appears at first hearing 
to be incorrect, the meaning of the conjunctions having 
little or no affinity to that of the verbs. Mr. Tooke him- 
self does not seem perfectly satisfied with its truth. Both 
these conjunctions are synonymous with "notwithstanding,'" 
" nevertheless ;" terms, the obvious meaning of which does 
not accord with verbs denoting " to get," or "to suppose." 
I am inclined, however, to think that Tooke's conjecture is 
founded in truth. If I say, " he was learned, yet modest," 
it may be expressed, " he was learned, notwithstanding 
this, or this being granted, even thus, or be it so {licet ita 
esset) he was modest ;" where the general incompatibility 
between learning and modesty is conceived, not expressed, 
the expression denoting merely the combination of the 
qualities in the individual mentioned. Notwithstanding 
indirectly marks the repugnance, by signifying that the 
one quality did not prevent the co-existence of the other ; 
yet or still supposes the incompatibility to be sufficiently 
known. This derivation is rendered the more probable, as 
the word though (thqf, grant) may be substituted to ex- 
press the same idea, as " though (grant) he was learned, he 
was modest ;" which is equivalent to " he was learned, yet 
(this granted) he was modest." Hence many repeat the 
concessive term, and say, " though he was learned, yet he 
was modest." 

Unless. Mr. Home Tooke is of opinion that this ex- 
ceptive conjunction is properly onles, the imperative of the 
verb oiilesan, to dismiss ; thus, "you cannot be saved un less 
you believe ;" i. e. " dismiss your believing, and you cannot 
be saved," or " you cannot be saved, your believing being 
dismissed." 

Lest is contracted for lesed, the participle of the same 
verb, onlesan or lesan, signifying " dismissed ;" as, " Young 
men should take care to avoid bad company, lest their 
morals be corrupted, and their reputation ruined ;" that is, 



ETYMOLOGY. 171 

" Young men should take care to avoid bad company, 
lest (this being dismissed, or omitted) their morals be 
corrupted," &c. 

That is evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some 
consider it, a demonstrative pronoun ; as, " They say that 
the king is arrived ;" u They say that (thing) the king is 
arrived." 

Whether is an adjective, denoting " which of two :" thus, 
" Whether he live or die ;" that is, " Which of the two 
things, he live, or die." 

As is the same with es, a German article meaning it, 
that, or which. 

So is sa or so, sl Gothic article of the same import. 

Than, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have noticed, 
is supposed to be a compound of the definitive tha, and 
the additive termination en, thus, tha en, thcenne, then, 
and now spelled than* 

These few examples will serve to explain Mr. Tooke's 

* The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke's ety- 
mologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the 
Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic's animadversions 
it is impossible not to concur ; but we do not agree with him, when he 
rejects the derivation of if from the Anglo-Saxon verb gifan, "to give;" 
nor do we consider that Jamieson's argument, to which he refers, is such 
as to justify the critic's conclusion. The distinction between bot and but 
he confidently pronounces to be "a mere chimera/' and maintains that 
but is in every instance be utan, " be out," "without," corresponding to the 
Latin words sed, vero, autem, sine. It must be acknowledged that Tooke's 
derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as " botan," 
of which bot could be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson 
in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, that but and bot are origi- 
nally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the 
critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not with 
him consider but for bot to be discriminative ; nor can we allow, that, if 
but be equivalent to sed, se, sine, implying separation, it can also be equi- 
valent to autem, " moreover," to which bot corresponds, implying adjec- 
tion, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous words 
mais (French), maar (Dutch), ma (Italian), imply preference, as the 
critic affirms, but something to be added, in connection with what has 
been previously said by the writer. 



172 ETYMOLOGY. 

theory on this subject ; and I am persuaded, that the fur- 
ther we investigate the etymology and real import of con- 
junctions, the more probable it will appear that they are 
all nouns or attributives, some belonging to kindred lan- 
guages, and others compounds or abbreviations in our own. 
I am persuaded also, that from a general review of this 
subject, it must be evident that adverbs, prepositions, and 
conjunctions, form no distinct species of words, and that 
they are all reducible to the class either of nouns or attri- 
butives, if their original character and real import be con- 
sidered. But, as many of them are derived from obsolete 
words in our own language, or from words in kindred lan- 
guages, the radical meanings of which are, therefore, either 
obscure, or generally unknown, — and as the syntactical use 
of several of them has undergone a change, — it can be no 
impropriety, nay, it is even convenient, to regard them not 
in their original character, but in their present use. When 
the radical word still remains, the case is different. Thus 
except is by some considered as a preposition ; but as the 
verb to except is still in use, except may, and indeed should, 
be considered as the imperative of the verb.* But in 
parsing, to say that the word unless is the imperative of 

* The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, 
that except cannot be an imperative, " because it has no subject; and that 
a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the 
different persons, without a gross violation of idiom. 1 ' He considers the 
word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I 
am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the term 
except is rendered by buton, which is no participle ; moreover, to place 
the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irre- 
concileable with the idiom of our language. "'All were involved in this 
affair, except one ;' that is," says Webster, who seems divided between the 
imperative and the participle, "'one excepted." Now "one excepted," 
and " excepting one," are perfectly consonant with analogy ; but " ex- 
cepted one" is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think that 
our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic idiom, to 
which the reviewer refers, used the word except as an imperative, with- 
out a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. He 
surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, " His arguments, 



ETYMOLOGY. 173 

the verb onlesan, to dismiss, that verb belonging to a dif- 
ferent language, would serve only to perplex and to con- 
found, were it even true that the etymology is correct. 
For this reason, though I perfectly concur with Mr. Tooke 
as to the proper and original character of these words, I 
have distributed them under the customary heads of pre- 
positions, adverbs, and conjunctions. 

take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing." The use of the impe- 
rative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a subject, 
is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as shall be 
afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages. 



174 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER X. 



OF INTERJECTIONS. 



An interjection has been defined to be, " that part of 
speech which denotes some affection or emotion of the 
mind."" It is clearly not a necessary part of speech ; for, 
as Tooke observes, interjections are not to be found in 
books of history, philosophy, or religion : they occur in 
novels only, or dramatic compositions. Some of these are 
entirely instinctive and mechanical, as, ha! ha! ha! sounds 
common to all men, when agitated with laughter. These 
physical emissions of sound have no more claim to be called 
parts of speech than the neighing of a horse, or the lowing 
of a cow. There are others which seem arbitrary, and are 
expressive of some emotion, not simply by the articulation, 
but by the accompanying voice or gesture. Grief, for ex- 
ample, is expressed in English by the word ah ! or oh ! in 
Latin by oi, ei ! and in Greek by oj, oi, ai, at I Here the 
sounds are not instinctive, or purely mechanical, as in 
laughing ; but the accompanying tone of voice, which is 
the same in all men, under the influence of the same emo- 
tion, indicates clearly the feeling or passion of the speaker. 
Others which have been deemed interjections, are, in truth, 
verbs or nouns, employed in the rapidity of thought and 
expression, and under the influence of strong emotion, to 
denote, what would otherwise require more words to ex- 
press : as, strange ! for it is strange ; adieu ! for / recom- 
mend you to God ; shame ! for it is shame ; welcome ! for you 
are welcome. 

The words which have been considered by our English 



ETYMOLOGY. 175 

grammarians as interjections, are the following, express- 
ive of 

1. Joy, as, Hey, Io. 

2. Grief, Ah, alas, alack. 

3. Wonder, Vah ! hah ! aha ! 

4. Aversion, Tush, pish, pshaw, foh, fie, pugh. 

5. Laughter, Ha, ha, ha. 

6. Desire of attention, Hark, lo, halloo, hem, hip. 

7. Languor, Heigh ho. 

8. Desire of silence, Hush, hist, mum. 

9. Deliberation, Hum. 

10. Exultation, Huzza. 

11. Pain, O ! ho ! 

12. Taking leave, Adieu. 

13. Greeting, Welcome. 



PART II. 
SYNTAX 



Syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences or 
phrases, agreeably to established usage, or to the received 
rules of concord and government. 

Sentences are either simple or complex. 

A simple sentence consists of only one member, con- 
taining therefore but one subject, and one finite verb, as, 
" Alexander the Great is said to have wept." 

A complex sentence consists of two or more members, 
as, "Alexander, when he had conquered the world, is said 
to have wept, because there were not other worlds to sub- 
due." 

Complex sentences are divided into members ; and 
these, if complex, are subdivided into clauses, as, " The 
ox knoweth his owner | and the ass his master's crib || but 
Israel doth not know | my people doth not consider." 
This complex sentence has two members, each of which 
contains two clauses. 

When a member of a complex sentence is simple, it is 
called indifferently a member, or a clause ; as, "I have 
called ; but ye have refused." The two parts, into which 
this sentence divides itself, are termed each either a mem- 
ber or a clause. 

When a complex sentence is so framed, that the mean- 
ing is suspended till the whole be finished, it is called a 
period ; otherwise the sentence is said to be loose. The 
following sentence is an example of a period : " If Hanni- 



SYNTAX. 177 

bal had not wintered at Capua, by which circumstance 
his troops were enervated, but had, on the contrary, after 
the battle of Cannae, proceeded to Rome, it is not impro- 
bable that the great city would have fallen. ,, 

The criterion of a period is, that you cannot stop before 
you reach the end of the sentence, otherwise the sentence 
is incomplete. The following is an example of a loose 
sentence. " One party had given their whole attention, 
during several years, to the project of enriching them- 
selves, and impoverishing the rest of the nation ; and by 
these and other means of establishing their dominion, 
under the government, and with the favour of a family, 
who were foreigners : and therefore might believe, they 
were established on the throne, by the good-will and 
strength of this party alone." In this sentence you may 
stop at the words themselves, nation, dominion, govern- 
ment, or foreigners ; and these pauses will severally com- 
plete the construction, and conclude perfect sentences. 
Thus in a period, the dependence of the members is reci- 
procal ; in a loose sentence, the preceding are not neces- 
sarily dependent on the subsequent members ; whereas 
the following entirely depend op those which are antece- 
dent. The former possesses more strength, and greater 
majesty ; hence it is adapted to the graver subjects of 
history, philosophy, and religion. The latter is less arti- 
ficial, and approaches nearer to the style of conversation ; 
hence it is suited to the gayer and more familiar subjects 
of tales, dialogues, and epistolary correspondence. 

Concord is the agreement of one word with another, in 
case, gender, number, or person ; thus, " I love." Here 
/is the pronoun singular of the first person, and the verb 
is likewise in the first person, and singular number ; they 
agree therefore in number and person. 

Government is the power, which one word hath over 
another in determining its state ; thus, " he wounded 
us." In this sentence, wounded is an active transitive 
verb, and governs the pronoun in the objective case. 

N, 



178 SYNTAX. 



CHAPTER I. 

OF CONCORD. 

Rule I. — A verb agrees with its nominative in 
number and person, as, 

We teach 
He learns 

where we and teach are each plural, and of the first 
person ; he and learns are each singular, and of the 
third person. 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples as these, 
" I likes," " thou loves," " he need," " you was." In re- 
ference to the last example, the reader should observe, that 
you is plural, whether it relate to only one individual or 
to more, and ought therefore to be joined with a plural 
verb. It is no argument to say, that when we address a 
single person, we should use a verb singular ; for were 
this plea admissible, we ought to say, " you wast," for 
wast is the second person singular, and not " you was," 
for was is the first or third. Besides, no one says, " you 
is," or " you art," but "you are." 

Note 2. — The nominative to a verb is known by putting 
the question, Who? or What? to the verb, as, / read; 
Who reads ? Ans. /. 

Note 3. — The infinitive often supplies the place of a 
nominative to a verb, thus, " To excel in every laudable 
pursuit should be the aim of every one." What should 
be the aim ? Ans. " To excel." 

Note 4. — As, considered now, as a conjunction, but 



SYNTAX. 179 

being, in its primitive signification, equivalent to it, that, 
or which, likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, 
" As far as regards his interest, he will be sufficiently care- 
ful not to offend.'" Some grammarians suppose it to be 
understood. 

Note 5. — A verb is frequently construed with a whole 
clause as its nominative, thus, " His being at enmity with 
Caesar was the cause of perpetual discord ;" where, his 
being at enmity, the subject of the affirmation, forms the 
nominative to the verb. 

Note 6. — The nominative, when the verb expresses com- 
mand or entreaty, is often suppressed, as, "speak" for 
"speak thou," "honour the king 1 ' for "honour ye the 
king." It is also frequently suppressed in poetry, as, 
" Lives there, who loves his pain ?" Milton : — i. e. " Lives 
there a man ?" " To whom the monarch ;" replied being 
understood. 

Note 7. — A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined 
to a plural verb, as, " Ten sail of the line were descried at 
a distance." It has been already observed, that the plural 
termination is sometimes suppressed, as, " ten thousand/' 
" three brace," " four pair." 

Note 8. — Priestley has said, that when the particle there 
is prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, 
" without a very sensible impropriety." But, if there be 
an impropriety at all, why should the phraseology be 
adopted ? His example is this, " There necessarily fol- 
lows from thence these plain and unquestionable conse- 
quences." Nothing, we apprehend, can justify this vio- 
lation of analogy. It should be, "follow." Would Dr. 
Priestley have said, " There is men who never reason ?" 

Note 9. — The nominative generally precedes the verb, 
and is, in some examples, known by nothing but its place, 
This arrangement, however, is sometimes altered, and the 
verb placed before the nominative. 

1st, Where the sentence is interrogative, as, " Does 
wealth make men happy ?" Here the nominative tvealth 

n 2 



180 SYNTAX. 

follows the auxiliary : " wealth does" would denote affir- 
mation. " Stands Scotland where it did?" Here also 
the nominative follows the verb, to denote interroga- 
tion^ 

2dly, In expressing commands or requests, as, M go 
thou," " read ye." 

3dly, When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the 
conditional particle if being understood, as, " Were I 
Alexander," said Parmenio, " I would accept the offer," 
where " were I" is equivalent to " if I were." 

4thly, After the introductory word there, as, " There 
was a man sent by God, whose name was John." " There 
are many who have the wisdom to prefer virtue to every 
other acquirement." This arrangement is preferable to 
" a man was sent," " many are," &c. ; and, as a general 
rule, I observe, that this collocation is not only proper 
but requisite, when a sentiment of importance is to be in- 
troduced to the hearer's particular attention. 

5thly, When the speaker is under the influence of vehe- 
ment emotion, or when vivacity and force are to be im- 
parted to the expression, the nominative energetically fol- 
lows the verb, as, " Great is Diana of the Ephesians." 
Alter the arrangement, saying, " Diana of the Ephesians 
is great," and you efface the signature of impetuosity, and 
render the expression frigid and unaffecting. " Blessed 
is he, that cometh in the name of the Lord." " He is 
blessed" would convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, 
a fervid exclamation into a cold aphorism. " Fallen, 
fallen is Babylon, that great city." The energy of the 

* This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author of 
the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of autho- 
rity. To ask a question with a principal verb, as, burns he, the latter 
affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in 
addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. 
" Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me V — Bible. " Died he not in bed ? " 
— Shakspeare. " Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark ?" — lb. " And 
live there men who slight immortal fame V'—Pope. 



SYNTAX. 181 

last expression arises partly, I acknowledge, from the 
epijeuxis or reduplication.* 

6thly, The auxiliary verb is placed before the nomina- 
tive, when the sentence or member begins with nor or 
neither, as, " Nor did we doubt that rectitude of conduct 
would eventually prove itself the best policy ." Thus also 
is placed the principal verb, as, " Nor left he in the city 
a soul alive." 

Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb 
should precede the nominative, there are several others 
not easily reducible to any precise rule. In general, how- 
ever, it may be remarked, that the place of the nomina- 
tive depends, in some degree, on its connexion with other 
parts of the sentence. " Hence appears the impossibility, 
that this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy." 
Impossibility being here in sense closely connected with 
the following words, this arrangement is preferable to that 
in the original. Hume says, " Hence the impossibility 
appears, that this undertaking should be carried on in a 
monarchy." 

Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, 
but signification singular, require a singular verb, as, 
" Mathematics is a useful study." This observation, 
however, is not justified by general usage, reputable 
writers being in this case much divided. (See p. 20.) 

Rule II. — Two or more substantives singular, 
denoting different things, being equivalent to a plu- 
ral, take a plural verb : or, when two or more sub- 
stantives singular are collectively subjects of dis- 
course, they require a plural verb, and plural re- 
presentatives, as, " Cato and Cicero were learned 
men ; and they loved their country." 

* Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have to- 
tally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus, mm, t*tn 
BeiSvkuv h -proXts n piya.\Yi, and which they have rendered, " Babylon is 
fallen, is fallen, that great city." 



182 SYNTAX. 

Note 1.— This rule is violated in such examples as this, 
" I do not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of 
mind, which fortune and your own wisdom has given you, 
could be better employed."— Swift. 

Note 2. — It was customary with the writers of anti- 
quity, when the substantives were nearly synonymous, to 
employ a verb singular, as, mens, ratio et consilium in se- 
nihus est, " understanding, reason, and prudence is in old 
men.'" In imitation of these, some English authors have, 
in similar instances, employed a verb singular. I concur, 
however, with L. Murray in disapproving this phrase- 
ology. For either the terms are synonymous, or they 
are not. If their equivalence be admitted, all but one are 
redundant, and there is only one subject of discourse; 
only one term should therefore be retained, and a verb 
singular be joined with it. If they be not equivalent, 
there are as many distinct ideas as there are terms, and 
a plurality of subjects require a .plural verb. 

This observation, however, requires some limitation. 
It occasionally happens that one subject is represented by 
two names, neither of which singly would express it with 
sufficient strength. In such cases, the two nouns may 
take a verb singular ; and if the noun singular should be 
in juxtaposition with the verb, the singular number should 
be used ; as, " Why is dust and ashes proud ?"-~Eeclesi- 
asticus, chap. x. 

Note 3. — In such expressions as the following, it has 
been doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular, 
or in the plural number : " Every officer and soldier claim 
a superiority in regard to other individuals." — De holme 
on the British Constitution. Here, I conceive, the phrase- 
ology is correct. Such an expression as " every officer 
and soldier claims'" might signify one individual under two 
different designations. Whether we should say, " Every 
officer, and every soldier, claim," is a point more particu- 
larly questioned. We often hear correct speakers say in 
common conversation, " Every clergyman, and every phy- 



SYNTAX. 183 

sician, is by education a gentleman ;" and there seems to 
be more ease, as well as more precision, in this, than in 
the other mode of expression. It is unquestionably, how- 
ever, more agreeable to analogy to say " are gentlemen."" 

Note 4. — It is not necessary, that the subjects of dis- 
course be connected, or associated by conjunctions : it is 
sufficient, if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a 
common predicate, whether with or without any connexive 
word, as, " Honour, justice, religion itself, were derided 
and blasphemed by these profligate wretches.'"* In this 
example the copulative is omitted. " The king, with the 
lords and commons, constitute an excellent form of go- 
vernment.'" Here the connexive word is not a conjunc- 
tion, but a preposition ; and though the lords and commons 
be properly in the objective case, and the king therefore 
the only nominative to the verb, yet as the three subjects 
collectively constitute the government, the verb without 
impropriety is put in the plural number. This phrase- 
ology, though not strictly consonant with the rules of con- 
cord, frequently obtains both in ancient and modern lan- 
guages : in some cases indeed it seems preferable to the 
syntactical form of expression. 

Note 5. — It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal 
adjective, compounded with self, is joined to a verb, the 
simple pronoun, which is the real nominative, is some- 
times understood. " If iniquity be in me, slay me thy- 
self :" (Bible :) L e. " Do thou thyself slay me." 

" To know but this, that thou art good, 
And that myself am blind :" — Pope. 

that is, " that I myself am blind." 

Note 6. — Where comparison is expressed or implied, 
and not combination, the verb should be singular ; thus, 

* The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the 
ancients asyndeton ; and this deviation from the established rules of syn- 
tax they referred to a grammatical figure termed syllepsis indirecta, or 
" indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural," opposed 
to the syllepsis directa, or that expressed by a copulative. 



184 SYNTAX. 

" Caesar, as well as Cicero, was remarkable for elo- 
quence." 

" As she laughed out, until her back, 

As well as sides, was like to crack." — Hudibras. 

Note 7. — When the nominatives are of different per- 
sons, the first person is preferred to the second, and the 
second to the third. In other words, / and you, I and 
he, are sylleptically the same as we ; you and he the same 
as ye. This observation, however, is scarcely necessary, 
as the verb plural admits no personal inflexion : it can be 
useful only in determining what pronoun should be the 
representative of the terms collectively, as, " he and I 
shared it between ms." 

Note 8. — In the learned languages the pronoun of the 
first person is deemed more worthy than that of the 
second, and the second than that of the third ; and hence 
arises the syllepsis of persons which obtains in Greek and 
Latin. But, though we admit the figure in English, we 
do not precisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins ; for 
though, like them, we place the pronoun of the second 
person before that of the third, we modestly place the 
pronoun of the first person after those of the second and 
third. Thus, where a Roman would say, si tu et Tullia 
valetis, ego et Cicero valemus, we should say, " If you 
and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well. 1 ' 

Rule III. — When of two or more substantives 
singular, one exclusively is the subject of discourse, 
a verb singular is required, as, " John, James, or 
Andrew, intends to accompany you ;" that is, one 
of the three, but not more than one. 

Note. — When the predicate is to be applied to the dif- 
ferent subjects, though they be disjoined by the con- 
junction, they may be followed by a plural verb. " Nei- 
ther you, nor I, are in fault." This is the usual form of 






SYNTAX. 185 

expression. If we consider neither in its proper character, 
as a pronoun, we should say, " neither you, nor I, is in 
fault ;" neither being the nominative to the verb. The 
former, however, is the common phraseology, and is analo- 
gous to the Latin idiom. " Quando nee gnatus, nee hie, 
mihi quicquam obtemperant." — Ter. Hec. " Id neque 
ego, neque tu, fecimus." — Id. " Num Leelius, aut qui 
Duxit ab oppressa meritum Carthagine nomen, Ingenio 
offensi r—Hor. 

Rule IV. — Nouns of number, or collective 
nouns, may have a singular or plural verb, thus, 

" My people do not consider/' 
" My people does not consider." 

This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not en- 
tirely arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea 
of number, the verb is preferably made plural ; but, if it 
suggest the idea of a whole or unity, it should be singular. 
Thus it seems harsh and unnatural to say, " In France 
the peasantry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes use 
of wooden shoes." It would be better to say, " the pea- 
santry go"- — " the middle sort make ;-" because the idea is 
that of number. On the contrary, there is something in- 
congruous and unnatural in these expressions: "The 
court of Rome were not without solicitude — The house of 
commons were of small weight — Stephen's party were en- 
tirely broken up." — Hume. 

Rule V. — The adjectives this and that agree 
with their substantives in number, as, 

This man These men 

That woman Those women 

All other adjectives are inflexible, as, 
Good man Good men. 



186 SYNTAX, 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such expressions as 
these, which too frequently occur, " These kind of people." 
" Those sort of goods." 

Note 2. — The substantive, with which the adjective is 
connected, is ascertained by putting the question, who, or 
what ? to the adjective, as, "a ripe apple." What is 
ripe ? Ans. " The apple." 

Note 3. — The inflexibility of the English adjective 
sometimes occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to 
which of two or more substantives the adjective refers. 
The defect is sometimes supplied by the note termed 
hyphen. If, for example, we hear a person designated 
" an old bookseller," we may be at a loss to know, whether 
the person intended be an old man who sells books, that 
is, " an old book-seller," or one who sells old books, that 
is, " an old-book seller." When we read the notice " Lime, 
slate, and coal wharf," we are indebted to the exercise of 
common sense, and not to the perspicuity of the diction, 
for understanding what is meant, by attaching the term 
wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in strict gramma- 
tical construction the notice might bear a different signi- 
fication. 

Note 4. — Every adjective has a substantive, either ex- 
pressed or understood, as, " the just shall live by faith," 
j. e. " the just man ;" " few were present," i. e. " few per- 
sons." 

Note 5. — The adjective is generally placed immediately 
before the substantive, as, " a learned man," " a chaste 
woman." 

Exc. 1.— When the adjective is closely connected with 
some other word, by which its meaning is modified or 
explained, as, " a man loyal to his prince," where the at- 
tributive loyal is closely connected with the following 
words. 

Exc. 2. When the verb to be expresses simple affirma- 
tion, as, " thou art good ;" or when any other verb serves 



SYNTAX. 187 

as a mere copula to unite the predicate with its subject, 
as, " he seems courageous," " it looks strange." 

Exc. 3. — For the sake of harmony, as, " Hail ! bard 
divine." 

Exc. 4. — When there are more adjectives than one con- 
nected with the substantive, as, " a man wise, valiant, 
and good." 

Exc. 5. — Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space 
or of time, are put after the clause expressing the measure, 
as, " a wall ten feet high," " a child three years old," " a 
speech an hour long." 

Note 6. — It has been doubted, whether the cardinal 
should precede or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury 
says, in one of his letters to Pope, " Not but that the 
four first lines are good." We conceive the expression to 
be quite correct, though the other form, namely, " the 
first four," be often employed to denote the same concep- 
tion. There is no contrast intended between these four 
and any other four, otherwise he should have said, " The 
first four." If we say, " the first seven years," it implies 
a division into sevens, as takes place, for example, in the 
terms of a lease ; " the seven first years" implies no such 
division. The Latins, as far as I have observed, had only 
one mode of arrangement. " Itaque quinque primis die- 
bus."— Cees.B. C. 15. " Tribus primis diebus."— lb. i. 18. 
That the adoption of one and the same collocation, in all 
cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, is evident. If 
we take, for example, seven objects, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 
and say " the first, and the three last," we clearly refer to 
A, and E, F, G ; but if we say " the first and the last 
three," we may indicate A, B, C, the first three, and E, 
F, G, the last three. 

Note 7. — Each is employed to denote two things taken 
separately, and is therefore used as singular. # Either is 
also singular, and implies only one of two ; as, take either, 

* It is sometimes used for every, and applied to more than two. 



188 SYNTAX. 

that is, " the one or the other, but not both.'' Both is a 
plural adjective, and denotes the two collectively. 

Note 8. — Every is an adjective singular, applied to more 
than two subjects taken individually, and comprehends 
theui all. It is sometimes joined to a plural noun, when 
the things are conceived as forming one aggregate, as, 
every tivelve years, i. e. " every period of twelve years." 

Note 9- — All is an adjective either singular or plural, 
denoting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, " All 
men are mortal." " Six days shalt thou labour and do all 
thy work." 

Note 10. — Much is an adjective of quantity, and of the 
singular number, as, " much fruit." Many an adjective 
of number, and therefore plural, as, " many men."" This 
word, however, is sometimes construed with a noun singu- 
lar, as, 

" Many a poor man's son would have lain still." — Shakspeare. 

Note 11. — More, as the comparative of much, is singu- 
lar, denoting a greater quantity ; as the comparative of 
many, it is plural, and signifies a greater number, as, 
more fruit, or "a greater quantity ; w more men, or "a 
greater number." 

Note 12. — Enough is an adjective singular, and denotes 
quantity, as, "bread enough:" enow denotes number, as 
" books enow." 

Note 13. — The correlative word to the adjective such, 
is as, and not who. There is an impropriety in saying, 
with Mr. Addison, " Such, who are lovers of mankind, 1 "' 
instead of " Such as,' 1 or " Those who." 

Note 14. — The superlative degree is followed by of, 
and also the comparative, when selection is implied, as, 
" Hector was the bravest of the Trojans." " Africanus 
was the greater of the (two) Scipios." When opposition 
is signified, the comparative is followed by than, as, 
" Wisdom is better than wealth." 



SYNTAX. 189 

Note 15. — There is an ambiguity in the adjective no, 
against which it is necessary to guard, and which Priest- 
ley seems to think that it is impossible to avoid in any 
language. Thus, if we say, " No laws are better than 
the English," it may mean either, that the absence of all 
law is better than the English laws, or that no code of 
jurisprudence is superior to the English. If the latter be 
the meaning intended, the ambiguity is removed by say- 
ing, " There are no laws better than the English.'" If 
the former is the sentiment to be expressed, we might say, 
" The absence of all law is preferable to the English 
system." 

Note 16. — Adjectives are sometimes improperly used 
for adverbs, as indifferent well, extreme bad, for indiffer- 
ently well, extremely bad. An example of this error is 
also found in the following sentence. " He was interro- 
gated relative to that circumstance." Relative is an ad- 
jective, and must have a substantive expressed or under- 
stood ; the question is then, what, or who was relative ? 
The answer, according* to the rules of construction, should 
be he. This however is not the meaning. The word 
ought be relatively. 

I am somewhat, however, inclined to think, that our 
grammarians have been hypercritical, if not chargeable 
with error, in condemning such expressions as these, ex- 
ceeding great, exceeding strong. This phraseology, I ap- 
prehend, has been reprobated, partly because not con- 
formable to the Latin idiom, and partly because such ex- 
pressions as these, excessive good, extreme dear, excellent 
well, are justly repudiated. Neither of these, however, 
can be deemed a sufficient reason for condemning this 
phraseology. For when it is said, "His strength was 
exceeding great," may not the expression be considered as 
elliptical, the word exceeding being construed as a partici- 
ple, thus, " his strength was exceeding," or " surpassing 
great strength," that is, " his strength exceeded great 



190 SYNTAX. 

strength." * So Shakspeare says, " it was passing 
strange." Though exceedingly strong, exceedingly good, 
are now considered to be the preferable phraseologies, 
there can be no doubt, as Webster has observed, that ad- 
jectives are sometimes used to modify the sense of other 
adjectives; thus we say, "red hot," "a closer grained 
wood," "a sharper edged sword." 

In connexion with the preceding note, we would here 
observe, that adjectives are used to modify the meaning of 
the verbs to which they refer ; thus we say, " Open thy 
hands wide." — Bible. " Cry shrill with thy voice." — lb. 
" He fought hard for his life." The use of the kindred 
adverbs, as will be afterwards shown, would in many in- 
stances materially alter the meaning. 

Rule VI. — The article a or an is joined to nouns 
of the singular number only, or nouns denoting a 
plurality of things in one aggregate, as, 

A man An army A thousand A few. 

Note 1. — To distinguish between the use of a and an, it 
is usually given as a general rule that a be placed before 
consonants and h aspirated, and an before vowels and h 

* In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression fre- 
quently occurs, thus, " I am thy exceeding great reward/' " I will 
make thee exceeding fruitful." 

Wallis's admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good 
English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unob- 
jectionable. His translation of vir summe sapiens, is, "a man exceeding 
wise." This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in 
his time very common, thus, 

" Although he was exceeding wealthy." — Veers. 

" He was moreover extraordinary courteous." — Ibid. 

" The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power." — 
Tullie. 

And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the 
following : " The house, I am to build, shall be wonderful great." 

Addison likewise often uses the phrase "exceeding great;" and Swift, 
less pardonably, writes "extreme unwilling," "extreme good." 



SYNTAX. 191 

not aspirated, as, a table, a hat, an oak, an heir. In re- 
spect to a before h aspirated, it must be observed, that usage 
is divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was 
translated, and the Liturgy composed, an was almost uni- 
versally used before h, whether the aspirate belonged to an 
emphatic, or an unemphatic syllable. A change has since 
taken place ; and some give it as a rule, to put a before h, 
when the syllable is emphatic, and an, when the syllable 
has not the emphasis. This rule, however, is not univer- 
sally observed ; some writing " a history," others " an his- 
tory;"" some writing " a hypothesis," others " an hypothesis.*" 
As far as easy pronunciation is concerned, or the practice 
of Greek and Roman writers may furnish a precedent, 
there seems to be no solid objection to either of these modes. 
The former is more common in Scotch and Irish writers 
than it is in English authors, with whom the aspiration is 
less forcible, and less common. 

An is used before a vowel ; but from this rule two devi- 
ations are admitted. Before the simple sound of u, follow- 
ed by another vowel sound, whether signified or not, a and 
not an is used. Thus we say, " such a one," " such a 
woman." If the sound of "one" be analysed, we shall 
find it resolvable into oo-un or won, as some orthoepists have 
expressed it ; and woman into oo-umman. Again, before 
the diphthongal sound of eu, in whatsoever manner that 
sound maybe noted, a may be, and frequently is used. 
Thus we say, " a youth," " a yeoman," " a eunuch," " a 
unicorn." Sheridan, indeed, contends, that all words be- 
ginning with u, when it has the diphthongal sound of eu, 
should be preceded by a, and not an. And here I must 
remark, that it is with no common surprise, I find Webster, 
in his introduction to his Dictionary, denying that the 
vowel u is anywhere equivalent to eu or e-00. Who those 
public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in England, 
and to whose authority he appeals, we are utterly at a loss 
to conjecture. But this we confidently affirm, that there 
is no orthoepist, no public orator, nay, not an individual 



192 SYNTAX. 

in any rank of society, who does not distinguish between 
the sound of u in brute, rude, intrude, and in cube, fume, 
cure. His reference to Johnson, who says, that u is long 
in confusion, and short in discussion, is irrelevant and nu- 
gatory. Dr. Webster surely has not to learn, that the 
vowel may be long, whether the sound be monophthongal, 
or diphthongal. It is strange too, that in the very exam- 
ple which he quotes from Johnson, the u has the diph- 
thongal sound, which he, notwithstanding, denies as any- 
where existing. 

Note 2. — A is employed to express one individual of a 
species without determining who or which ; the denotes 
some particular individual or individuals ; thus, " a book" 
means any book, " the book " some particular book ; and 
when both articles are omitted the whole class is signified, 
as, " Man is born unto trouble,"" i. e. " all men." Hobbes 
errs against this rule when he says, " God Almighty has 
given reason to a man, to be a light unto him." The ar- 
ticle should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error 
when he writes, 

" Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel." 
It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known 
instrument of torture, or " the wheel." 

The article a serves to distinguish between two subjects 
compared with each other, and two subjects compared with 
a third. " He is the author of two works of a different 
character." If the writer meant to say that he was the 
author of two works of a different character from that of 
one previously mentioned, the expression would be correct. 
But he intended to signify a dissimilarity between the two 
productions. He should, therefore, have omitted the 
article, and said, " of different character," or " of different 
characters." 

Note 3. — The indefinite article, though generally placed 
before the adjective, as, " a good man," is put after the ad- 
jective such ; and where these words of comparison occur, 
as, so, too, how, its place is between the adjective and sub- 



SYNTAX. 193 

stantive, thus, " Such a gift is too small a reward for so 
great a service." When the order is inverted, this rule 
is not observed, as, " a reward so small, 1 ' " a service so 
great." The definite article is likewise placed before the 
adjective, as, " the great king." All is the only adjective 
which precedes the article. " All the servants," " all the 
money." 

Note 4. — Pronouns and proper names do not admit the 
definite article, themselves sufficiently determining the 
subject of discourse; thus we cannot say, the i, the Alex- 
ander. If we employ the definite article with a proper 
name, an ellipsis is involved ; thus, if I say, he com- 
mands the Ccesar, I mean, he commands the ship called 
" Caesar." 

Note 5. — The definite article is used to distinguish the 

o 

explicative from the determinative sense. The omission 
of the article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. 
For this reason the following sentence is faulty ; " All 
words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter 
of mistake." — Bolingbroke. Here the clause, " which are 
signs of complex ideas," is not explicative, but restrictive ; 
for all words are not signs of complex ideas. It should, 
therefore, be " all the," or " all those words, which are 
signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake." 

" In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of 
judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of 
Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights, which for 
many years have been relinquished." — Erskine on the 
Rights of Juries. This sentence is chargeable at once 
with ambiguity and error. In the first place, it is doubt- 
ful whether a regard to this analogy governs the directions 
of the judge, or is to rule the decision of the jury. 2dly, 
By the omission of the definite article, or the word those 
before the antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause 
explicative, instead of being restrictive ; for, as all in- 
corporeal rights are not abolished, he should have said, 
"against those incorporeal rights." 



194 SYNTAX. 

There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent 
clause admits the definite article, though the relative clause 
be not restrictive, thus, 

" Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean 
From the defiling power of sin." 

Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the 
antecedent admits the article. Thus also, in the following 
sentence, " My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the 
saints, and the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight." 
The relative clause is not intended to limit the meaning of 
the antecedent terms, and yet they admit the definite ar- 
ticle. In all examples, therefore, like these, where the ex- 
planatory meaning admits the article, it is necessary, for the 
sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative sense by the 
emphatic words that or those. Thus, had the clause been 
determinative in the latter of these examples, it would have 
been necessary to say, " those saints, and those excellent 
ones, in whom is my delight. 1 " 

Note 6. — The definite article is likewise used to distin- 
guish between things which are individually different, but 
have one generic name, and things which are, in truth, one 
and the same, but are characterized by several qualities. 
For example, if I should say, " the red and blue vestments 
were most admired," it may be doubtful whether I mean 
that the union of red and blue in the same vestments was 
most admired, or that the red and the blue vestments were 
both more admired than the rest. In strictness of speech, 
the former is the only proper meaning of the words, though 
the latter sentiment be often thus expressed. If the latter 
be intended, we should say, " the red vestments and the 
blue,'' 1 or " the red and the blue vestments," where the article 
is repeated. If I say, " the red and blue vestments," it is 
obvious that only one subject is expressed, namely, "vest- 
ments," characterized by two qualities, "redness" and 
" blueness," as combined in the subject. Here the subject 
is one ; its qualities are plural. If I say, " the red vest- 



SYNTAX. 195 

ments and the blue," or " the red and the blue vestments," 
the subjects are plural, expressed, however, by one generic 
name, vestments. 

In the same manner, if we say, " the ecclesiastical and 
secular powers concurred in this measure," the expression 
is ambiguous, as far as language can render it such. The 
reader's knowledge, as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent 
his mistaking it ; but, if such modes of expression be ad- 
mitted, where the sense is clear, they may inadvertently 
be imitated in cases, where the meaning would be obscure, 
if not entirely misunderstood. The error might have been 
avoided, either by repeating the substantive, or by sub- 
joining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing 
the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the substan- 
tives after both adjectives, the article being prefixed in the 
same manner ; thus, " the ecclesiastical powers, and the 
secular powers," or better, " the ecclesiastical powers, and 
the secular," or " the ecclesiastical, and the secular powers." 
The repetition of the article shows, that the second adjec- 
tive is not an additional epithet to the same subject, but 
belongs to a subject totally different, though expressed by 
the same generic name. " The lords spiritual and tempo- 
ral," is a phraseology objectionable on the same principle, 
though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we dare 
hardly question its propriety. The subjects are different, 
though they have but one generic name. It should there- 
fore be, " the spiritual and the temporal lords." 

On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as 
epithets to one and the same thing, the other arrangement 
is to be preferred. Thus, " the high and mighty states." 
Here both epithets belong to one subject. " The states 
high and mighty," would convey the same idea. 

Where the article is not used, the place of the substan- 
tive ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the 
same thing, or to different things having the same generic 
name. " Like an householder, who bringeth out of his 

o 2 



196 SYNTAX. 

treasure things new and old." This arrangement is faulty ; 
both epithets cannot belong to the same subject. It should 
be, " new things and old." 

If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, 
the substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or 
to follow both, the article being uniformly omitted before 
the second adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive 
before the first, or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they 
belong to different subjects, with the same name, the sub- 
stantive ought to follow the first adjective, and may be 
either repeated after the second, or understood ; or it should 
follow both adjectives, the article being prefixed to each 
of them. 

Note 7. — The omission, or the insertion of the indefi- 
nite article, in some instances, nearly reverses the mean- 
ing ; thus, 

" All, little think the gay, licentious proud." — Thomson. 

Here little is equivalent to " not niuch," or rather by a 
common trope it denotes not at all. Locke says, " I leave 
him to reconcile these contradictions, which may be plen- 
tifully found in him by any one, who reads with but a 
little attention." Here, on the contrary, where the inde- 
finite article is inserted, " a little" means " not none," or 
" some." 

In like manner, when it is said, " Strait is the gate, and 
narrow is the way, and few there be that find it;" few is 
opposed to many. Thus also, " Many are called, but 
few are chosen." But when it is said, " Tarry a few 
days, till thy brother's fury turn ;" a few is here equiva- 
lent to some, not as opposed to many, but as opposed to 
not none. If we say, "few accompanied the prince," we 
seem to diminish the number, and represent it as incon- 
siderable, as if we said, " not many," or " fewer than ex- 
pectation :" if we say, a few, we seem to amplify ; — we 
represent the number as not unworthy of attention, or as 
equal, at least, if not superior to expectation. In short, 



SYNTAX. 197 

if the article be inserted, the clause is equivalent to a 
double negative, and thus it serves to amplify ; if the ar- 
ticle be suppressed, the expression has either a diminutive 
or a negative import. 

Note 8. — The indefinite article has, sometimes, the 
meaning of every or each ; thus, " they cost five shillings 
a dozen," that is, " every dozen." 

" What makes all doctrines plain and clear ? 
About two hundred pounds a year." — Hudibras. 

That is, " every year." 

Note 9. — There is a particular use of this article, which 
merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, 
be avoided. In denoting comparison, when the article 
is suppressed before the second term, the latter, though it 
may be an appellative, assumes the character of an attri- 
butive, and becomes the predicate of the subject, or first 
term. If, on the contrary, the second term be prefaced 
with the article, it continues an appellative, and forms the 
other subject of comparison. In the former case, the 
subject, as possessing different qualities in various de- 
grees, is compared with itself; in the latter, it is com- 
pared with something else. 

Thus, if we say, "he is a better soldier than scholar," 
the article is suppressed before the second term, and the 
expression is equivalent to, " he is more warlike than 
learned," or " he possesses the qualities, which form the 
soldier, in a greater degree than those, which constitute 
the scholar." If we say, " he would make a better sol- 
dier, than a scholar," here the article is prefixed to the 
second term ; this term, therefore, retains the character of 
an appellative, and forms the second subject of compa- 
rison. The meaning accordingly is, " he would make a bet- 
ter soldier, than a scholar would make ;" that is, " he has 
more of the constituent qualities of a soldier, than are to 
be found in any literary man." 

Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his let- 



198 SYNTAX. 

ters to Atterbury, he says, " You thought me not a worse 
man, than a poet." This strictly means " a worse man 
than a poet is ;" whereas he intended to say, that his moral 
qualities were not inferior to his poetical genius. He 
should have said, " a worse man than poet." 

These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, 
which seldom fails to create ambiguity. Baker erro- 
neously considers them as equivalent, and prefers that, 
in which the article is omitted before the second substan- 
tive. When there are two subjects with one predicate, 
the article should be inserted ; but when there is one sub- 
ject with two predicates, it should be omitted. 

Note 10. — Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, 
when an additional epithet or description of the same sub- 
ject is intended, the definite article should not be employ- 
ed. It is by an attention to this rule, that we clearly dis- 
tinguish between subject and predicate. For this reason 
the following sentence appears to me faulty : " The apos- 
tle James, the son of Zebedee, and the brother of St. John, 
would be declared the apostle of the Britons. 1 ' — Henry's 
History of Britain. It should be rather, "and brother 
of St. John." When a diversity of persons, or a change 
of subject is intended to be expressed, the definite article 
is necessarily employed, as, " Cincinnatus the dictator, 
and the master of horse, marched against the iEqui." 
The definite article before the latter appellative marks the 
diversity of subject, and clearly shows that two persons 
are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression 
would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, 
were one and the same individual. 

Rule VII, — Substantives signifying the same 
thing agree in case, thus, " I, George the Third, 
king of Great Britain, defender of the faith." The 
words/, George, king, defender, are all considered 
as the nominative case. " The chief of the princes, 



SYNTAX. 199 

he who defied the bravest of the enemy, was assas- 
sinated by a dastardly villain :" where the pronoun 
he agrees in case with the preceding term chief. 
This rule, however, may be deemed unnecessary, as 
all such expressions are elliptical ; thus, " the chief 
of the princes was assassinated," " he was assas- 
sinated." " He was the son of the Rev. Dr. West, 
perhaps him who published Pindar at Oxford."— 
Johnsons Life of West. That is, " the son of him." 
Were the pronoun in the nominative case, it would 
refer to the son, and not the father, and thus con- 
vey a very different meaning. 

Note 1. — As proper names are, by the trope antono- 
masia, frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, 
" the Socrates of the present age," where Socrates is equi- 
valent to " the wisest man," so also appellatives have fre- 
quently the meaning and force of attributives. Thus, if 
we say, " he is a soldier," it means either that he is by 
profession a soldier, or that he possesses all the qualities 
of a military man, whether professionally a soldier or not. 
According to the former acceptation of the term, it is a 
mere appellative ; agreeably to the latter, it has the force 
of an attributive. 

Note 2. — Two or more substantives in concordance, and 
forming one complex name, or a name and title, have the 
plural termination annexed to the last only, as, " the two 
Miss Louisa Howards, the two Miss Thomsons" Analogy, 
Dr. Priestley observes, would plead in favour of another 
construction, and lead us to say, the two Misses Thomson, 
the two Misses Louisa Howard ;" for if the ellipsis were 
supplied, we should say, the two young ladies of the name 
of Thomson, and this construction, he adds, he has some- 
where met with." 

The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally 
occurs ; but general usage, and, I am rather inclined to 



200 SYNTAX. 

think, analogy likewise, decide in favour of the former; 
for, with a few exceptions, and these not parallel to the 
examples now given,* we almost uniformly, in complex 
names, confine the inflexion to the last substantive. Some 
proofs of this we shall afterwards have an opportunity of 
offering. I would also observe, in passing, that ellipsis 
and analogy are different principles, and should be care- 
fully distinguished. 

Rule VIII. — One substantive governs another, 
signifying a different thing, in the genitive, as, 

The tyrant's rage. The apostle's feet. 

Note 1. — This rule takes place when property, posses- 
sion, or the general relation, by which one thing apper- 
tains to another, is implied. 

Note 2. — It may be considered as violated in such ex- 
amples as these, " Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime." 
— Addison. " Christ his sake." — Common Prayer. 

Note 3. — Substantives govern not only nouns, but like- 
wise pronouns, as, " its strength," " his reward." 

Note 4. — This case is generally resolvable into the ob- 
jective with the preposition of, as, " the king's sceptre," 
or " the sceptre of the king ;" " his head," or " the head 
of him." I have said generally, for it is not always thus 
resolvable. For example, the Christian sabbath is some- 
times named " the Lord's day ;" but " the day of the 
Lord" conveys a different idea, and denotes " the day of 
judgment." 

Note 5. — The latter, or governing substantive, is fre- 
quently understood, as, " the king will come to St. James's 
to-morrow," that is, " St. James's palace." " I found him 
at the stationer's," that is, " the stationer's shop," or 
" the stationer's house." 

Note 6. — When a single subject is expressed as the 

* We say, indeed, " Messrs. Thomson ;" but we seldom or never say, 
" the two Messrs. Thomson," but " the two Mr. Thomsons." 



SYNTAX. 201 

common property of two or more persons, the last only 
takes the sign of the genitive, as, " this is John, "William, 
and Richard's house ;" that is, " this is the house of John, 
William, and Richard." But, when several subjects are 
implied, as severally belonging to various individuals, the 
names of the individuals are all expressed in the genitive 
case, as, " these are John's, "William's, and Richard's 
houses." In such examples as these, the use of the geni- 
tive involves an ambiguity, which it is sometimes difficult 
to prevent. Thus, if we say, agreeably to the first ob- 
servation in this note, " Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's pos- 
terity were carried captive to Babylon," one unacquainted 
with the history of these patriarchs might be at a loss to 
determine whether " the patriarch Abraham," " the pa- 
triarch Isaac," and " the posterity of Jacob," were carried 
captive ; in other words, whether there be three subjects 
of discourse, namely, Abraham, Isaac, and the posterity of 
Jacob, or only one subject, the posterity of these patri- 
archs. Nor will the insertion of the preposition in all 
cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example before 
us, were the word u descendants" substituted for " pos- 
terity," and the phrase, to proceed thus, " the descendants 
of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," an ignorant reader 
might be led to suppose that not one generation of de- 
scendants, but three distinct generations of these three in- 
dividuals were carried into captivity. If we say, "the 
posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," the expression 
appears to me liable to the same misconstruction with the 
one first mentioned. If we say, " the common posterity 
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were carried captive to 
Babylon," all ambiguity of expression is prevented. 

Instead also of saying, " John, William, and Richard's 
house," I should prefer " a house belonging in common to 
John, William, and Richard." This expression, though 
laborious and heavy, is preferable to the inelegance and 
harshness of three inflected substantives, while it removes 
the ambiguity, which might in some cases be occasioned 



202 SYNTAX. 

by withholding the inflexion from the two first substan- 
tives. Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be 
combined, it will not be questioned which we ought to 
prefer. I observe also, that though such phraseologies as 
this, " John's, William's, and Richard's houses," be per- 
fectly consonant with syntactical propriety, and strictly 
analogous to the established phraseology, " his, Richard's, 
and my houses," yet, as there appears something uncouth 
in the former expression, it would be better to say, " the 
houses belonging in common, or severally (as the meaning 
may be) to John, William, and Richard." 

Note 7. — When a name is complex, that is, consisting of 
more terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the 
genitive, as, " Julius Caesar's Commentaries," " John the 
Baptist's head," " for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's 
wife." 

Note 8. — When a short explanatory term is subjoined 
to a name, it matters little to which the inflexion be an- 
nexed, as, "I left the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the book- 
seller's," or " at Mr. Johnson's, the bookseller." But if 
the explanatory term be complex, or if there are more ex- 
planatory terms than one, the sign of the genitive must be 
affixed to the name, or first substantive, thus, " I left the 
book at Johnson's, a respectable bookseller, a worthy man, 
and an old friend." In the same manner we should say, 
" this psalm is David's, the king, priest, and prophet of 
the people," and not " this psalm is David, the king, 
priest, and prophet of the people's." 

Note 9. — In some cases we employ both the genitive 
and a preposition, as, " this is a friend of the king's," 
elliptically, for " this is a friend of the king's friends." 
We say also, " this is a friend of the king." These forms 
of expression, however, though in many cases equivalent, 
sometimes imply different ideas. Thus, if I say, " this is 
a picture of my friend/' it means, a this is an image, like- 
ness, or representation of my friend." If I say, " this is 
a picture of my friend's," it means, " this picture belongs 
to my friend." 



SYNTAX. 203 

As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies 
part of a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think 
the use of it should be avoided, unless in cases where this 
plurality may be implied. Thus we may say, " a kinsman 
of the traitor's waited on him yesterday, 1 ' it being implied 
that the traitor had several or many kinsmen. The ex- 
pression is equivalent to " a kinsman of the traitor's kins- 
men. ,, But, if the subject possessed were singular, or 
the only one of the kind, I should recommend the use 
of the simple genitive ; thus, if he had only one house, I 
should say, " this is the house of the traitor," or " this 
is the traitor's house;' 1 but not "this is a house of the 
traitor's." 

Note 10. — The recurrence of the analytical expression, 
and likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully 
avoided. Thus, there is something inelegant and offen- 
sive in the following sentence, " the severity of the dis- 
tress of the son of the king touched the nation. 11 Much 
better, " the severe distress of the king's son touched the 
nation. 1 ' 

Note 11. — There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or 
uncouthness, in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in 
" the army's name," " the commons' vote,' 1 " the lords' 
house," expressions of Mr. Hume, there is a manifest 
want of dignity and of elegance. Much better, " the 
name of the army," " the vote of the commons," " the 
house of lords." 

Rule IX. — Pronouns agree with their antece- 
dents, or the nouns which they represent, in gen- 
der, number, and person, as, " They respected 
Cato and his party," where Cato is singular and 
masculine, and his agrees with it in gender and 
number. " He addressed you and me, and desired 
us to follow him," where us sylleptically represents 
the two persons. " Thou, who writest." Here the 



2104 SYNTAX. 

antecedent thou being a person, the relative who, 
not which, is employed. The antecedent also being 
of the second person and singular number, the re- 
lative is considered as of the same character, and 
is therefore followed by the verb in the second 
person and singular number. "Vice, which no 
man practises with impunity, proved his destruc- 
tion." Here the antecedent vice not being a per- 
son, the pronoun which, of the neuter gender, is 
therefore employed. " The rivers, which flow into 
the sea." Here also the antecedent not being a 
person, the relative is which. It is also considered 
as in the plural number ; and, as all substantives 
are joined to the third person, which, the repre- 
sentative of rivers, is joined to the third person 
plural of the verb. 

Note 1. — -This rule is transgressed in the following 
examples : " Beware of false prophets, which come to you 
in sheep's clothing." " The fruit tree bearing fruit after 
his kind." " There was indeed in our destinies such a 
conformity, as seldom is found in that of two persons in 
the same age." Here that, referring to destinies, is put 
for those. " The crown had it in their power to give such 
rewards as they thought proper." — Parliamentary De- 
bates. 

Note 2. — The relative should be placed as near as 
possible to the antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is some- 
times occasioned. 

Note 3. — In the earlier editions of Murray's Grammar, 
we find the following rule : " When the relative is pre- 
ceded by two nominatives of different persons, it may agree 
in person with either, as, ' I am the man who commands 
you,' or fi I am the man who command you.'" The rule 
here given is erroneous. The construction is by no means 
arbitrary. If we say, " I am the man who commands 



SYNTAX. 205 

you," the relative clause, with the antecedent man, form 
the predicate ; and the sentence is equivalent to " I am 
your commander." If we say, " I am the man who com- 
mand you," the man simply is the predicate, and I who 
command you the subject ; thus, " I who command you," 
or " I your commander am the man. 1 ' This error, suffi- 
ciently obvious to every discerning reader, I pointed out 
in the former edition of this Treatise. Murray's rule, as 
it stood, is clearly repugnant to perspicuity, and syntacti- 
cal correctness. 

In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, in 
every edition posterior to the publication of u The Ety- 
mology and Syntax," the rule is altered ; but whether 
from a disinclination to expunge a rule, which he had 
once delivered, — a disinclination perhaps accompanied 
with a belief, that it might be corrected with little pre- 
judice to its original form, or from what other motive he 
has left it in its present state, I will not presume to de- 
termine ; but in the alteration, which he has introduced, 
he appears to me to have consulted neither usefulness nor 
perspicuity. He says, " When the relative is preceded 
by two nominatives of different persons, it may agree in 
person with either. 1 ' So far he has transcribed the former 
rule; but he adds, "according to the sense." Now it 
cannot be questioned, and the learner needs not to be in- 
formed, that the relative may agree with either. If after 
having taught the learner, that a Latin adjective must 
agree with its substantive, we were to add, as a distinct 
rule, that it may agree with either of two substantives, 
according to the sense, I apprehend, we should be 
chargeable with vain repetition, or with extreme inatten- 
tion to correctness and precision. For what would our 
rule imply ? Clearly nothing more, than that the adjec- 
tive is capable of agreeing with the substantive to which it 
belongs ; and of this capacity no scholar, who had learned 
to decline an adjective, could possibly be ignorant ; or it 
might convey some idea, that the concord is optional. Now, 



206 SYNTAX. 

is it not certain, that the adjective must agree with its 
proper substantive, namely, that whose meaning it is in- 
tended to modify, and no other? The relative, in like 
manner, must agree with that antecedent, and that only, 
whose representative it is in the relative clause. There is 
nothing arbitrary in either the one case, or the other. 

Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former 
part of the altered rule leaves the concord as it first stood, 
discretionary, the latter confines the agreement of the re- 
lative to its proper antecedent. But why this apparent 
contrariety ? Why is that represented as arbitrary, which 
is determined by the sense? This, however, is not the 
only objection ; for it may be affirmed, without hesitation, 
that the rule, thus considered, is completely superfluous. 
For the learner has been already told, that the relative 
agrees with the antecedent in gender, number, and person. 
And can the antecedent be any other, than that which the 
sense indicates ? And what does this rule teach ? Pre- 
cisely the same thing. The rule, therefore, is either cal- 
culated to mislead by representing as arbitrary what is 
fixed and determinate, or it is purely a rule of superero- 
gation. As it stood originally, it gave some new informa- 
tion ; but that information was erroneous : as it stands 
now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless. 

The scholar may require an admonition, when there are 
two antecedents of different persons, to be careful in re- 
ferring the relative to its proper antecedent ; but to tell 
him that it may agree with the one, or the other, accord- 
ing to the sense, is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, 
which he already knows. In the examples just now ad- 
duced, the termination of the verb, by indicating the per- 
son of the relative, clearly shows the antecedent ; but, 
where the substantives are of the same person, and the 
verb cannot therefore by its termination indicate the ante- 
cedent, ambiguity should be precluded by the mode of 
arrangement. Thus, " He is the hero who did it," and 
" He who did it is the hero." In the former, he is the 



SYNTAX. 207 

subject, and the hero who did it the predicate ; and in the 
latter, he who did it is the subject, and the hero the pre- 
dicate. 

Note 4. — The relative, instead of referring to any 
particular word as its antecedent, sometimes refers to a 
whole clause, thus, " the bill was rejected by the lords, 
which excited no small degree of jealousy and discon- 
tent, 1 ' that is, " which thing,'" namely, the rejection of 
the bill. 

Note 5. — The antecedent pronoun of the third person 
is often suppressed, when no particular emphasis is im- 
plied ; as, " Who steals my purse, steals trash," i. e. " he," 
or " the man, who." " Whom he would he slew ; whom 
he would he kept," Bible ; i. e. " Those whom he would." 
"Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin." In 
this example the antecedent he, and nominative to the 
principal verb, is understood. 

Priestley has remarked that the pronouns whoever and 
whosoever have sometimes a double construction. He 
gives the two following examples. " Elizabeth publicly 
threatened that she would have the head of whoever had 
advised it." — Hume. " He offered a great recompense to 
whomsoever would help him to a sight of him." — Hume. 
Though the learned author seems to admit both these 
modes of construction, we apprehend, that only one of 
them is grammatical. It has been just now observed that 
the antecedent is often understood to the relative who, and 
to the compounds whoever and whosoever. If the ante- 
cedent be supplied, it will be found that the construction 
is not arbitrary, as Priestley supposes, but definite and 
fixed. The first sentence is correct. " She would have 
the head of him, or them, whoever had advised," the rela- 
tive being the nominative to the verb. tc He offered a 
great recompense to him, or them, whosoever should help 
him." Whomsoever is a solecism : though close to the pre- 
position to, it is not under its government. (See the fol- 
lowing rules.) 



208 SYNTAX. 

Rule X. — If no nominative intervene between 
the relative and the verb, the relative shall be the 
nominative to the verb, as, " Solomon, who was the 
son of David, built the temple of Jerusalem." Here 
who is the nominative to the verb was. 

Rule XI. — But, if a nominative intervene be- 
tween the relative and the verb, the relative shall 
be under the government of the preposition going 
before, or the noun or verb following, as, " God, 
whom we worship, is the Lord, by whose gift we 
live, and by whom all things were made." In the 
first relative clause, where we is the intervening no- 
minative, the relative is in the objective case, and 
governed by the verb following : in the second 
clause, where the intervening nominative is like- 
wise we, the relative is in the genitive case, and 
governed by the noun following, thus, " by whose 
gift," or " by the gift of whom ;" and in the third 
clause, where things is the intervening nominative, 
the relative is in the objective case, and governed 
by the preposition. 

Note 1. — The case of the relative may always be ascer- 
tained by repeating the antecedent, and arranging the 
clause in the natural order, thus, " the city, which is 
called Rome, was founded by Romulus," i. e. " the city, 
which city is called Rome.'" The antecedent repeated is 
the nominative to the verb is, which therefore agrees with 
it in case. " God, who sees all things, will punish the 
wicked," i. e. " God, which God sees all things ;" the re- 
lative therefore is the nominative to the verb sees, that is, 
it is in the same case in which the antecedent would be put, 
if again expressed. '" Solomon, whom David loved, was 
the wisest of princes.'' 1 Here, if we arrange the relative 



SYNTAX. 209 

clause in the natural order, beginning with the nomina- 
tive and the verb, it will run thus, " David loved whom," 
an expression analogous to " David loved him," or " Da- 
vid loved which Solomon." Many solecisms in the con- 
struction of the relative would be easily avoided, by a 
little attention to the natural arrangement. Thus, instead 
of committing the error involved in the following exam- 
ples, " The philosopher, who he saw to be a man of 
profound knowledge," " 'Twas my brother, who you met 
with," " I was a stranger to the person, who I spoke to," 
we should be led by the natural order to the correct phrase- 
ology ; " he saw whom," " you met with whom," " I 
spoke to whom." It is to be observed, however, that, 
though the personal pronouns, when under the govern- 
ment of a verb, may either precede or follow it, the rela- 
tive in the same state of government must invariably go 
before it. 

Note 2. — The relatives who and which are often under- 
stood, especially in colloquial language. " The friend I 
visited yesterday is dead to-day," i, e. " the friend whom 
I visited yesterday is dead to-day." 

Note 3. — After a comparative, both relative and an- 
tecedent are often understood. " The damage was far 
greater than he knew." Here there is a comparison, of 
two objects, the damage suffered, and the damage known ; 
but only one is expressed. The sentence, if the ellipsis 
were supplied, would run thus, " The damage was far 
greater, than what," or " that, which he knew." 

Note 4. — There are a few cases, which are considered 
by some distinguished critics and grammarians, as re- 
quiring the use of that in preference to the pronouns who 
and which. 

1st, After superlatives the pronoun that is generally 
used, as, " The wisest man, that ever lived, is liable to 
error." 

2dly, After the word same, that is generally used, as, 
" he is the same man, that you saw yesterday." But, if 



210 SYNTAX. 

a preposition should precede the relative, one of the other 
two pronouns must be employed, the pronoun that not 
admitting a preposition prefixed to it, as, " he is the same 
man, with whom you were acquainted."" It is remarkable, 
however, that when the arrangement is somewhat changed, 
the word that admits the preposition, as, " he is the same 
man, that you were acquainted with." 

3dly, That is used after who, taken interrogatively, as, 
" Who, that has the spirit of a man, would suffer himself 
to be thus degraded ?" 

4thly, When persons and things are referred to, as, 
" the men and things, that he hath studied, have not con- 
tributed to the improvement of his morals. r> 

Rule XII. — An active transitive verb governs 
the accusative or objective case, as, 

" He teaches me." 
" We honour him." 

Note 1. — As examples of transgression against thisrule, 
we may adduce the following : " Who do I love so much ?" 
— Shakspeare. " Who should I meet the other day, but 
my old friend ?" — Spectator. " Those, who he thought 
true to his party." — Clarendon. 

Note 2 As substantives have no objective case, the 

subject or object of the energy or affection is distinguished 
by its place, which is after the verb, as, " Achilles slew 
Hector," where Achilles, the agent, precedes, and Hector, 
the subject of the action, follows the verb. Reverse this 
order, and the meaning is reversed, as, " Hector slew 
Achilles." Where the proper arrangement is not observed, 
ambiguity or misconstruction is frequently produced. Thus, 
when Pope says, Odyss. xix. 

" And thus the son the fervent sire addressed," 

it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire 
address the son ? A little attention would have prevented 



SYNTAX. 211 

the ambiguity. If the sire addressed the son, the line 
should run thus, 

" And thus his son the fervent sire address'd.'' 
If the son addressed the sire, 

" And thus the son his fervent sire address'd." 

Note 3. — An active intransitive verb sometimes governs 
the objective case of a noun, of the same or a kindred sig- 
nification, as, " Let us run the race, which is set before 
us." " If any man see his brother sin a sin, which is not 
unto death." — Bible. The latter verb, however, though 
thus used, must not be employed in a transitive sense. It 
is an error, therefore, to say, " What have I sinned ?" — 
Bible. It should be, " How ?" or " In what ?" Some in- 
transitive verbs also, when used in a reflex sense, are joined 
to an objective case, as, " Then having shown his wounds, 
he'd sit him down." — Home's Douglas. This is a poetic 
licence, which, in a prose writer, would not be tolerated, 
unless in colloquial and very familiar language. 

Note 4. — The objective case should not, if possible, be 
separated from its verb. This rule is violated in the fol- 
lowing sentence : " Becket could not better discover, than 
by attacking so powerful an interest, his resolution to main- 
tain," &c. — Hume. The regimen is here unnecessarily, 
and very inelegantly, separated from its verb. 

Rule XIII. — Verbs signifying to ask, teach, of- 
fer, promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, and some others 
of like signification, are sometimes, especially in 
colloquial language, followed in the passive voice 
by an objective case. 

Note 1. — This rule seems to have escaped the attention 
of all our English grammarians, except Priestley, who ob- 
serves, " that in some familiar phrases, the subject and 
object of our affirmation seem to be transposed." This 
idiom, except in a very few instances, is not to be found in 

p2 



212 SYNTAX. 

Latin, though it occurs pretty often in Greek : it therefore 
particularly merits the attention of the junior Latin scho- 
lar, lest in his Anglo-Latin translations it should betray 
him into an egregious solecism. " He allowed me great 
liberty,"" turned passively, in concurrence with the Latin 
idiom, " great liberty was allowed me." But we say also 
in English, " I was allowed great liberty ." t( He promised 
(to) me a ship in five days/' passively, " a ship was pro- 
mised me," and " I was promised her in five days." " She 
would not accept the jewels, though they were offered to 
her by her mother," or " though she was offered them by 
her mother." 

Note 2. — After verbs of giving, telling, sending, promis- 
ing, offering, and others of like signification, the thing is 
very generally placed before the person. In the time of 
Swift and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. 
We find authors of that period saying indiscriminately, 
" Give it us," and " Give us it ;" " Tell him it," and 
" Tell it him ;" " He promised me it," and " He promised 
it me." In Scotland these two modes of expression still 
obtain. In England they are now reduced under one 
general rule. We say, " Give it me," " Tell it him," 
" He sent it us." 

Rule XIV. — The verb to be has the same case 
after it as it has before it, thus denoting that the 
subjects are identical, or that the one term is the 
predicate of the other, as, " It is he," " You be- 
lieved it to be him." In the former example, it is 
the nominative to the verb, the nominative case he 
therefore follows the verb. In the latter, it is the 
regimen of the verb believed, the verb to be is there- 
fore followed by the objective case. 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples as 4f it 
is me? " it was him? " I believed it to be he? " whom do 
men say that I am ?" In the last example, the natural 



SYNTAX. 213 

arrangement is, " men say that I am whom," where, con- 
trary to the rule, the nominative i" precedes, and the objec- 
tive case whom follows the verb. 

Note 2. — Priestley has asked, " Who would not say, 
6 If it be me,' rather than ' If it be I ?' " Our ears are 
certainly more familiar with the former than with the lat- 
ter phraseology, and those, who consult the ear only, may 
prefer it : but, where no advantage is gained by a depart- 
ure from analogy, every deviation is at once idle and re- 
prehensible. 

Note 3. — The verb to be is called by logicians the copula, 
as connecting the subject with the predicate. Thus, when 
we say, " he is wise," " they are learned," he and they are 
the subjects ; ivise and learned the predicates. Now, it 
particularly deserves the attention of the classical scholar, 
that in English almost any verb may be used as a copula. 
This circumstance is the more worthy of his notice, as a 
conformity to the Latin idiom may lead him to reject ex- 
pressions, which are unexceptionable, and to adopt others 
not strictly correct. * Thus we say, " it tastes good," 
" he strikes hard," " I remember right," " he feels sick," 
a we came late," " they rise early," " he drinks deep." I 
am aware that the words late, early, are in such examples 
considered as adverbs. It appears to me they are adjec- 
tives, — that the idiom is truly English, and that all these 
expressions are perfectly analogous. 

Rule XV. — When two verbs come together, the 
attribute signified by the one verb being the subject 
or object of the action, energy, or affection express- 
ed by the other, the former is governed in the in- 
finitive mood, as, " he taught me to read," " I know 
him to be." 

* Home Tooke observes, that Lowth has rejected much good English : 
and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar is too prone to 
condemn in his own language whatever accords not with the Latin idiom. 



214 SYNTAX. 

Note 1. — The infinitive thus frequently supplies the 
place of an objective case after the verb, as it often stands 
for a nominative before it, as, " he loves to study," or 
" he loves study ." 

Note 2. — In such examples as, " I read to learn," where 
the latter phrase, though in the same form as to study, in 
the preceding example, has, notwithstanding, a different 
meaning, and cannot be resolved like it into " I read learn- 
ing, 1 ' in such examples, as Tooke justly observes, the pre- 
position for denoting the object, and equivalent to pour 
in French, is understood, as, "I read for to learn." Our 
southern neighbours, indeed, in these examples, never 
omit the casual term ; and Trusler has not improperly ob- 
served, that, when the verb does not express the certain 
and immediate effect, but something remote and contin- 
gent, the words in order to, which are nearly equivalent 
to for, may be pertinently introduced, as, " in order to 
acquire fame, men encounter the greatest dangers." 

Note 3. — The verbs to bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, 
feel, let, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive, as 
" He bade me go," " I saw him do it." It is to be ob- 
served, however, that in the language of Scripture the verb 
" to make" is often followed by to, as, " He maketh his 
sun to rise." The verb " to dare," for " to challenge," or 
" to defy," is also construed with to, " I dare thee but to 
breathe upon my love." — Shakspeare. 

Note 4. — Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often 
followed by an infinitive, as, " your desire to improve will 
ultimately contribute to your happiness." " Good men 
are desirous to do good." 

Note 5. — As the proper tense of the subsequent or se- 
condary verb has, in certain cases, been a subject of dis- 
pute, it may be necessary to observe, that, when the simple 
attribute, or merely the primary idea expressed by the 
subsequent verb, is intended to be signified, it should then 
be put in the present tense : but when the idea of perfec- 
tion or completion is combined with the primary idea, the 



SYNTAX. 215 

subsequent verb should have that form, which is termed 
the perfect of the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule may, 
more intelligibly to the scholar, though less correctly, be 
thus expressed, that when the action or state, denoted by 
the subsequent verb, is contemporary with that of the 
primary verb, then the secondary verb must be put in the 
present tense ; but when action or state is prior to that ex- 
pressed by the secondary verb, the latter must be put in 
the preterite tense. Usage, indeed, and the opinions of 
grammarians, are divided on this subject. But when no- 
thing but usage can be pleaded in favour of one phrase- 
ology, and when reason concurs with usage to recommend 
another, it will not be questioned that the latter deserves 
the preference. Thus, we should say, " I expected to see 
you," and not " I expected to have seen you ;" because 
either the expectation and the seeing must be regarded as 
contemporary, or the former must be considered as prior 
to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the see- 
ing be considered as contemporary with the expectation ? 
Might not the former have been anterior to the latter? 
This is certainly possible ; I may see a friend before I ex- 
pect him. But though the sight, abstractedly considered, 
may precede the expectation, it cannot possibly, as an ob- 
ject of expectation, be prior to it. The idea involves ab- 
surdity, equal and analogous to the assertion, that the 
paper, on which I write, existed as an object of my per- 
ception, previously to my perceiving it. Agreeably to the 
second form of the rule here given, we find that the Latins 
very generally used the present of the infinitive, to express 
an action or state contemporary with the attribute of the 
primary verb. Thus, dixit me scribere, u he said that I 
wrote," or " was writing," that is, at the time of his saying 
so : dixit me scripsisse, " he said that I had written." 

I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted 
by the subsequent verb is implied, we should use the 
present of the infinitive. This phraseology should not only 
be used in all cases, where contemporary actions or states 



216 SYNTAX. 

are to be signified, but may also be sometimes employed, 
where the secondary verb denotes something posterior to 
what is implied by the first. For though in no instance, 
where the simple action or state is to be expressed, should 
we use the sign of past or future time, yet for obvious rea- 
sons we may, and often do employ the present infinitive, 
or simple name, to denote what is future, when the primary 
verb necessarily implies the futurity of its object. Thus, 
instead of saying, " he promised that he would pay," where 
the constructive sign of futurity is used, to denote the 
posteriority of the payment, we often say, "he promised 
to pay,"" employing the present tense, synonymous with the 
simple name, as, "he promised payment." The Latins 
also, though they almost universally, unless in colloquial 
language, preferred the former mode of expression, some- 
times adopted the latter, as, denegavit se dare. — Plaut. 
Jusjurandum pollicitus est dare. — Id. " He refused to 
give," ii he promised to give," or " he promised giving," the 
secondary verb expressing the act simply, and the time 
being necessarily implied. 

Note 6. — The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an 
absolute or independent sense, as, " to speak the truth, we 
are all liable to error." " Not to trespass on your time, I 
will briefly explain the whole affair," that is, " that I may 
speak," " that I may not trespass." 

Rule XVI. — The imperative, agreeably to the 
general rule, agrees with its nominative, as, 

" Love thou ;" "■ listen ye," or " you." 

Note 1. — The imperative is frequently used, without its 
subject, that is, the nominative being suppressed, but the 
person, or persons, being perfectly understood. " And 
Samuel said to the people, Fear not," i. e. " Fear ye not." 

Note 2. — It is employed in the same way, in an absolute 
sense, without its subject. " Our ideas are movements of 
the nerves of sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting 



SYNTAX. 217 

visible ideas, suppose of a triangular piece of ivory." — Dar- 
win. I agree with Webster in thinking, that there is " a 
peculiar felicity" in such absolute forms of expression, the 
verb being thus applicable to any of the three persons, 
thus, " I may suppose," " you may suppose," " one may 
suppose." 

Rule XVII. — Participles are construed as the 
verbs, to which they belong, as, 

" Teaching us to deny ungodliness." 

Note 1. — The imperfect participle is frequently used like 
a substantive, and is, in such examples, of the same import 
with the infinitive of the verb ; as, " they love reading," 
i. e. " they love to read." In some examples it becomes a 
real noun, and has a plural number, as, the outgoings of 
the morning. 

Note 2. — Lowth contends that, when the imperfect par- 
ticiple of a transitive verb is not preceded by the definite 
article, it properly governs the objective case, and is ana- 
logous to the Latin gerund, as, " much advantage will be 
derived from observing this rule ;" in which example, this 
rule is the regimen of the participle observing; and that, 
when the definite article precedes the participle, it becomes 
then a pure noun, and, therefore, cannot have the regimen 
of a verb. He therefore condemns this expression, " by 
the sending them the light of thy holy spirit." Some of 
our grammarians consider Lowth, in this instance, as fas- 
tidiously critical ; but to me he appears chargeable with 
error. Let us examine the reasons, which the author ad- 
duces in support of his opinion. 

In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, 
does usage justify the opinion of the author ? He acknow- 
ledges the contrary : he even admits that there is not a 
single writer, who does not violate this rule. Were it ne- 
cessary, indeed, after this concession, it would be easy to 
evince, that not only our translators of the Bible, whose 



218 SYNTAX. 

authority surely is of great weight, but also other writers 
of the highest eminence, employ the phraseology which he 
condemns. 

Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to esta- 
blish, favour perspicuity ? The very reverse appears to me 
to be the case ; for he admits an identity of sense in two 
distinct phraseologies, which are, incontestably, in many 
instances, susceptible of different meanings. And, though 
this ambiguity may not be involved in every example, we 
have surely good reason for repudiating a phraseology 
which may, in any instance, be liable to misconstruction. 
We are to prescribe, not what may be perspicuous in some 
instances, but what must be intelligible in all. 

Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either 
by inserting the article before the participle and the pre- 
position after it, or by the omission of both ; in other words, 
that these phraseologies are equivalent. Thus, according 
to him, we may say either, " by sending his Son into the 
world," or "by the sending of his Son." Here, perhaps, 
the meaning is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of these 
forms of expression be adopted. But let us take another 
example, as, " he expressed the pleasure he had, in hearing 
the philosopher." Now, according to Lowth, we may also 
say, " he expressed the pleasure he had, in the hearing of 
the philosopher." Is there no difference of sentiment here ? 
Are these expressions equivalent ? The contrary must be 
obvious to the most inattentive reader. According to the 
former phraseology, the philosopher was heard — he is re- 
presented as passive ; agreeably to the latter, he was active 
— he heard. 

Again. "When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, 
because of the provoking of his sons and daughters." 
Our translators have correctly exhibited the sentiment. 
The sons and daughters had given offence ; they had pro- 
voked the Deity. But, if Lowth's opinion be correct, the 
expression might be, " because of provoking his sons and 
daughters;" a phrase which evidently conveys a very 
different idea. 



SYNTAX. 219 

Again. When it is said, s; at the hearing of the ear, 
they will believe," is this expression convertible, without 
violating the sense, into, " at hearing the ear they will 
believe?" Many more examples might be produced to 
prove, that these phraseologies, which Lowth considers of 
the same import, are by no means equivalent. It appears 
then, that perspicuity is not consulted by adopting this 
rule. 

Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition 
before it, as correspondent to the Latin gerund, and there- 
fore governing an objective case ; but the participle pre- 
ceded by an article, he considers as a substantive, and 
therefore incapable of any regimen. Now, as the author 
reasons from one language to another, we may pertinently 
ask, is not the Latin gerund a noun, a verbal substantive, 
not only having the form, and the inflexions of a noun, but 
governed like it, by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepo- 
sitions, itself likewise governing the case of its verb ? This 
position, were this the place for it, we could easily prove, 
notwithstanding the objections, which Scioppius, Vossius, 
with some other grammarians, have alleged against it. 
Nay, whatever theory be adopted respecting the nature of 
the gerund, there cannot exist a doubt, that, in the early 
ages of Roman literature, the verbal nouns in io governed 
an accusative, like the verbs whence they were derived. 
Quid tibi curatio est lianc rem, is one example from Plau- 
tus out of many, which might be produced.* That the 
supines also were, in truth, substantives admitting a regi- 
men, is equally clear : Difficile dictu was originally difficile 
in dictu ; and misit oratum opem, misit ad oratum opem. 
Nor can the structure of the future infinitive passive be so 
satisfactorily resolved, notwithstanding a few repugnant 
examples, as on this supposition : Dixit libros ledum iri 
is resolved into dixit (id) iri ad ledum libros, where libros 
is the regimen of the verbal noun ledum. 

* See Johnson's Comm. p. 352, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. 
To the arguments there offered, many others might be added. 



220 SYNTAX. 

- Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and 
verbal nouns in io, though in form and inflexion substan- 
tives, governed an accusative case. It matters not, indeed, 
to the point in question, what was the practice of the an- 
cients in this respect ; nor should I, therefore, have dwelt 
so long on this subject, did I not conceive, that the very 
authority, to which Dr. Lowth seems to appeal, militates 
against him ; and that the very language, to which in this, 
as in most other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had 
nouns governing cases, like the verbs from which they 
came. 

From the preceding observations, I think it must ap- 
pear, that the rule, given by Dr. Lowth, is neither sanc- 
tioned by general usage, nor friendly to perspicuity ; 
while the violation of it is perfectly reconcileable with the 
practice of the Roman writers, if their authority can, in 
this question, be deemed of any value. 

Having attempted to prove the invalidity of LowtrTs 
argument, and the impropriety of his rule, as establishing 
an identity of meaning, where a difference must exist, I 
would submit to the candid and judicious critic the follow- 
ing remarks. 

The participle in ing has either an active or passive sig- 
nification ; its import must, therefore, be determined by 
the judgment of the reader, or by explanatory adjections. 
Whatever, then, is calculated to remove all misconstruc- 
tion, and to render its import clear and unequivocal, merits 
attention. Consistently, then, with some of the examples 
already adduced, I am inclined to suggest, that, when the 
noun, connected with the participle, is active or doing 
something, the preposition should be inserted, as, " in the 
hearing of the philosopher," that is, the philosopher hear- 
ing ; and that, when the noun represents the subject of an 
action, or what is suffering, the preposition should be omit- 
ted, as " in hearing the philosopher," or the philosopher 
being heard. An attention to this rule will, I conceive, in 
most cases prevent ambiguity. 



SYNTAX. 221 

If it should be said, that I have admitted Lowth's 
phraseologies, I answer, it is true ; but with this differ- 
ence, that he considers them as equivalent, and I as dia- 
metrically opposite. I observe, likewise, that, though I 
prefer the suppression of the article when the participle is 
not followed by of, and its insertion when it is followed by 
the preposition, it is not because I perceive any impro- 
priety in the other phraseology, but because, since the 
publication of Lowth's Grammar, it has been less em- 
ployed ; and because also it less forcibly marks the dis- 
tinction, which I have recommended. That it has the 
sanction of good authority, is unquestionable ; and that it 
is not inconsistent with analogy will still further appear 
from the following note. 

Note 3. — The participle in ing is construed like a noun, 
governing the genitive case, and, at the same time, having 
the regimen of its proper verb, as, " Much depends on 
Richard's observing the rule, and error will be the conse- 
quence of his neglecting it." In this example, the words 
Richard's and his are in the genitive case, governed by the 
participles observing and neglecting, while these participles, 
having here every character of a noun, admit the objective 
case. This form of expression has been received as unex- 
ceptionable ; the following phraseology, however, has been 
censured, though, in truth, precisely analogous to the one 
now exemplified ; " Much depends on the rule's being ob- 
served, and error will be the consequence of its being ne- 
glected." " Here," said a certain writer, " is a noun with 
a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that 
is, under the government of another noun, but without any 
other noun to govern it ; for being observed and being ne- 
glected, are not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the 
possessive case by the preposition of, before the noun or 
pronoun." 

I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this ob- 
jection, in thinking, that the expression is not only sanc- 
tioned by good usage, but is also agreeable to analogy, and 



222 SYNTAX. 

preventive of circumlocution. The objector, indeed, does 
not seem to have been aware, that his opinion is at vari- 
ance with itself; and that the reason, which he assigns for 
rejecting this phraseology, would, with equal force, con- 
clude against another mode of expression, which he him- 
self approves. For he would have no objection to say, 
" Much depends on his observing the rule, and error will 
be the consequence of his neglecting it." Now let us try, 
whether this sentence be not liable to the same objection 
as the other. In the former, he says, you cannot possibly 
supply the place of the possessive case, by the preposition 
of 'before the noun or pronoun. This is true ; for it would 
not be English to say, " Much depends on the being 
observed of the rule ; and error will be the consequence 
of the being neglected of it." But will his own approved 
phraseology admit this? Let us see; " Much depends on 
the observing of him of the rule, and error will be the con- 
sequence of the neglecting of him of it." Were the ex- 
ample simpler, the argument would be equally strong ; 
as, " Much depends on your pupiPs composing, but more 
on his reading frequently." This sentence the author al- 
luded to would have approved. Let us try if it can be 
resolved by of: " Much depends on the composing of your 
pupil, but more on the reading of him frequently." 

The author's argument, then, if it prove any thing, 
proves too much ; it cannot, therefore, have any weight. 

In addition to these observations, I would remark, that 
the writer's argument involves another inconsistency. He 
admits, that the participle in ing may be thus construed ; 
for he approves the phrases, " his observing the rule," 
and " his neglecting it." Why then does he reject " his 
being" and " its being ?" for the past or perfect participles 
observed and neglected have no share in the government, 
rule's and ifs being under the regimen of the participle in 
ing. In fact, then, the phrase seems no more objectionable 
than " his being a great man did not make him a happy 
man ;" which our author would admit to be wholly unex- 
ceptionable. 



SYNTAX. 223 

Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle 
similar to that, the absurdity of which we have been at- 
tempting to expose, have discarded a phraseology which 
appears unobjectionable, and substituted one which seems 
less correct. Many writers, instead of saying, " his being 
smitten with the love of Orestilla was the cause of his mur- 
dering his son," would say, " he being smitten with the 
love of Orestilla was the cause.'" This seems to me an idle 
affectation of the Latin idiom, less precise than the com- 
mon mode of expression, and less consonant with the genius 
of our language. For, ask what was the cause ; and, ac- 
cording to this phraseology, the answer must be he ; 
whereas the meaning is, that not he, but his being smitten, 
was the cause of his murder. 

lt This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of 
Gloucester with the murder of Prince Edward." " This," 
says Mr. Baker, " very justly, is, in my opinion, a very 
uncouth way of speaking, though much used by ignorant 
people, and often affected by those who are not ignorant.''' 
The writer should have said, " for Hall's charging.*" " His 
words being applicable to the common mistake of our age 
induce me to transcribe them." Here I agree with the 
same writer in thinking, that it would be better to consider 
zvords as in the genitive case plural, governed by the par- 
ticiple, as HalVs in the preceding example, and join his 
words' 1 being applicable, equivalent to the applicability of 
his words, with the verb singular ; thus, " his words' being 
applicable to the common mistake of our age, induces me 
to transcribe them." A ridiculous partiality in favour of 
the Latin idiom, which in this case is not so correct as 
our own, not exhibiting the sentiment with equal pre- 
cision, has given birth to this phraseology, which in many 
cases conveys not the intended idea. For, as Priestley 
remarks, if it is said, " What think you of my horse's 
running to-day ?" it is implied, that the horse did actually 
run. If it is said, " What think you of my horse running 
to-day ?" it is intended to ask, whether it be proper for my 



224 SYNTAX. 

horse to run to-day. This distinction, though frequently 
neglected, deserves attention ; for it is obvious, that ambi- 
guity may arise from using the latter only of these phrase- 
ologies, to express both meanings. 

Note 4. — This participle is sometimes used absolutely, 
in the same manner as the infinitive mood, as, " This con- 
duct, viewing it in the most favourable light, reflects dis- 
credit on his character." Here the participle is made 
absolute, and is equivalent to the infinitive in that state, 
as, " to view it in the most favourable light.'" Both these 
modes of expression are resolvable, either by the hypothe- 
tical, or the perfective conjunctions ; thus, " if we view it 
in the most favourable light." " To confess the truth, I 
have no merit in the case ;" i. e. " that I may confess." 

Rule XVIII. — A noun or pronoun joined to a 
participle, its case being dependent on no word in 
the sentence, is put in the nominative. 

N te 1. — This rule will be perfectly understood by the 
classical scholar, when we say, that the absolute case in 
English is the nominative. Thus, " We being exceed- 
ingly tossed the next day, they lightened the ship." 
The pronoun of the first person, joined to the participle 
being, is neither the nominative to any verb, nor is it con- 
nected with any word, of which it can be the regimen. 
It is therefore put in the nominative case. 

Note 2. — This rule is violated in such examples as the 
following, " Solomon made as wise proverbs as any body 
has done, him only excepted, who was a much wiser man 
than Solomon." — Tillotson. 

" For only in destroying I find ease 

To my relentless thoughts; and, him destroy 'd 
Or won to what may work his utter loss, 
For whom all this was made, all this will soon 
Follow."— Milton. 

This seems to be the only example in which the poet 



SYNTAX. 225 

has transgressed this rule; and in several instances, in 
which he has observed it, Bentley would erroneously sub- 
stitute the objective case. 

Rule XIX. — Prepositions are joined with the 
objective case, or govern nouns and pronouns in 
the accusative, as, " he ran to me," " he was loved 
by us." 

Note l.« — This rule is violated in such expressions as 
these, " Who servest thou under ?" " Who do you 
speak to ?" for the syntactical arrangement is, " thou 
servest under who P" " thou speakest to who ?" instead of 
" under whom ?" " to whom ?" 

Note 2.— -The preposition is frequently separated from 
its regimen, as, " Horace is an author, whom I am much 
delighted with," i. e. " with whom I am much delighted." 

Note 3. — The prepositions to and for are often under- 
stood, as, " he gave me a book,' 1 " he told me the news :" 
i. e. " he gave to me," " he told to me." 

Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, 
the pronouns me, thee, &c. may be considered to be in the 
dative case, as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of 
their respective pronouns, and in their form include to, 
as, " woe is to me." This phrase, he observes, is pure 
Saxon, the same as " wae is me," in which me is a dative 
case. 

The preposition by is also, in a few colloquial expres- 
sions, omitted, as, " he went across the bridge," "he crossed 
the bridge," for " he crossed (the river) by the bridge." 

Note 4. — A preposition, following a verb, constituting 
with it what has been termed a compound active verb, is 
sometimes suppressed. We say, '.' he hoped for a re- 
ward," " you wondered at his courage." Addison, Steele, 
and Johnson, with several other reputable writers, say, 
" It is to be hoped," instead of " to be hoped for ;" and 
Johnson very generally says, " It is not to be wondered," 

Q 



226 SYNTAX. 

for " not to be wondered at." The latter form of expres- 
sion seems to have been adopted, in order to avoid the 
abrupt and inelegant conclusion of the clause, especially 
when followed by the word that. 

Note 5. — The prepositions in, on, for and from, are 
often understood before nouns of time and place ; thus, 
" this day," " next month," " last year," are often used 
elliptically for, " on this day," " in next month," " in 
last year." We say also, " He was banished England," 
i. e. " from England." 

Care, however, should be taken that the omission create 
no ambiguity. If we say, " He was deaf some years be- 
fore he died," referring to a temporary deafness, and a 
point of time at which it occurred, the expression is not 
improper, though the meaning might be more clearly ex- 
pressed ; but, if we intend to signify a continued deafness, 
we ought to say " for," or " during some years." 

Note 6. — The preposition is improperly omitted in the 
following line of Pope's : 

" And virgins smiled at what they blush'd before." 

It should be, according to the rules of syntax, " smiled at 
what they blushed at before," both verbs requiring at 
after them, thus, " they smiled at that, at which they 
blushed before." 

Note 7. — Prepositions should be placed as near as pos- 
sible to each of the words, whose relation they express. 
The following sentence from Hume is, in this respect, 
faulty : " The ignorance of the age in mechanical arts, 
rendered the progress very slow of this new invention." 
It should be, " the progress of this new invention." The 
following sentence from Johnson is, for the same reason, 
chargeable with faulty arrangement : " The country first 
dawned, that illuminated the world, and beyond which 
the arts cannot be traced of civil society or domestic life." 
— Rasselas. It should be, " the arts of civil society or 
domestic life cannot be traced." Priestley has censured 



SYNTAX. 227 

the following clause from Harris, " being in no sense ca- 
pable of either intension or remission. " If it be con- 
sidered, however, that the word either properly means 
" the one or the other," and in truth denotes the subject, 
being, therefore, in strict propriety the regimen of the 
preposition, the arrangement of Harris, though now not 
so common as the other, will not appear exceptionable. 
Nay, whatever may be the future decision of usage, that 
great arbitress of all language (for at present she is di- 
vided), Harris's arrangement seems more conformable to 
the strict meaning of the words, as well as to Priestley's 
own rule, than that, which the latter recommends ; thus, 
" capable of either (i. e. of the one or of the other), inten- 
sion, or remission." 

Rule XX.— Adverbs have no government. 

Note 1. — They are sometimes improperly used for ad- 
jectives, as, " After those wars, of which they hoped for 
a soon and prosperous issue." — Sidney. " A soon issue" 
is not English ; an adverb cannot agree with a substan- 
tive ; it should be "a speedy and prosperous issue." 
Such expressions likewise as the following, though not 
destitute of authority, are exceedingly inelegant, and irre- 
concilable with analogy : "the then ministry," for " the 
ministry of that time ;" " the above discourse," for " the 
preceding discourse." 

Note 2. — They are sometimes used like substantives, as, 
" a little while," for " in a little time," or " for a little 
time." " Worth while," " some how," " any how," " any 
where," are examples of the same kind. 

Note 3. — The adverbs whence, thence, hence, are equi- 
valent to " from which place," " from that place," " from 
this place ;" from whence, from thence, from hence, are 
therefore chargeable with redundancy. 

Note 4 — Never is sometimes erroneously used for ever, 
as, " they might be extirpated, were they never so many." 
It should be, " ever so many," i. e. " how many soever." 

Q 2 



228 SYNTAX. 

u Who will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm- 
ing never so sweetly." It should be, " ever so sweetly ;" 
i. e. " however sweetly," or " how sweetly soever." 

Note 5. — Ever is likewise sometimes improperly used 
for never, as, " I seldom or ever see him now." It should 
be, " seldom or never" the speaker intending to say, 
" that rarely, or rather at no time, does he see him now ;" 
not " rarely/' or " at any time." 

Note 6. — Priestley remarks, that the French always 
place their adverbs immediately after their verbs, which 
order, he observes, by no means suits the English idiom. 
" His government gave courage to the English barons to 
carry farther their opposition." — Hume. It would be 
better, " to carry their opposition farther." " Edward 
obtained a dispensation from his oath, which the barons 
had compelled Gaveston to take, that he would abjure for 
ever the realm ;" better " the realm for ever." 

Note 7. — The adverb is generally placed between the 
auxiliary verb and the participle, as, " this is perfectly 
understood." When there are more auxiliaries than one, 
the same author observes, that the adverb should be placed 
after the first. This rule, however, is by no means uni- 
versally followed ; for many of our best writers employ a 
different arrangement, and, I think, with great propriety; 
as, " this will be perfectly understood," where the adverb 
follows both auxiliaries. The place of the adverb may, 
in general, be ascertained, by considering what word it is 
intended to qualify : and, in the last example, it should 
be closely connected with understood. But more on this 
subject in the following note. 

Note 8. — The adverb, as its name imports, is generally 
placed close to the word, which it modifies or affects : its 
force, therefore, very much depends upon its position. In- 
attention to the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently 
the cause of much obscurity and misconception. To this 
inattention we may ascribe the ambiguity in the following 
sentence : " He was not honoured with this reward, but 



SYNTAX. 229 

with the approbation of the people." This sentence may 
imply, either that he was honoured with this reward, not 
without the approbation of the people ; or that he was not 
honoured with this reward, but was honoured with the 
approbation of the people. The latter is the meaning in- 
tended. It should therefore be, " he was honoured, not 
with this reward, but with the approbation of the people." 
By this arrangement the sentiment is correctly exhibited 
— the two subjects, reward and approbation, are perspi- 
cuously contrasted, and while the former is negatived, the 
latter is affirmed.* 

Note 9- — Lowth observes that " the adverb should be for 
the most part placed before adjectives, and after verbs ;*" 
thus, " he was excessively modest," " he fought bravely." 
This is, indeed, the general arrangement ; but it admits 
many exceptions. In no case are writers so apt to err as 
in the position of the word only. Its place, in my opinion, 
is after the substantive to which it refers, or which it ex- 
clusively implies, and before the attributive. In the fol- 
lowing sentence of Steele's, the collocation is faulty. " The 
bridegroom sits with an aspect which intimates his thoughts 
were not only entertained with the joys with which he was 
surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude, and divine 
pleasure." This collocation of the two adverbs implies 
that his thoughts were something more than entertained : 
whereas it is the author's intention to say, that his thoughts 
were entertained with something more than joys. The 
sentence, therefore, should proceed thus : " The bride- 
groom sits with an aspect, which intimates, that his thoughts 
were entertained not with the joys only, with which he was 

* The propriety of this collocation of the negative will be more evident, 
if we attend to the two very different meanings of the word but. Accord- 
ing to the former construction of the sentence, but is the imperative of 
beutan, " to be out," and is synonymous with unless or except ; thus, 
" but with the approbation/' or except with the approbation. According 
to the latter construction, it is properly bot r the imperative of botan, " to 
add." Thus, " he was honoured not with (i. e. exclude or except) this 
reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people/' 



230 SYNTAX. 

surrounded, but also with a noble gratitude and divine 
pleasure." # 

When Addison says (Spec. No. 412), " By greatness I 
do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the 
largeness of a whole view,'" the question naturally occurs, 
what does he more than mean ? It is evident that, agree- 
ably to this arrangement, the adverb refers to mean, exclu- 
sively of all other attributes or actions, and being prefaced 
by a negative, implies " that he does something more than 
mean.'" In this criticism I concur with Blair, who has 
expressed his disapprobation of this arrangement. 

Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb 
after bulk, it would have still been wrong. For if he had 
said, " I do not mean the bulk only,"" then the adverb, follow- 
ing a noun substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every 
other, and the clause being negative, the question would 
be, what does he mean more than the bulk ? Is it the 
colour, the beauty, or what else ? 

Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not 
mean one thing, the word only should have followed the 
name of that thing, whether its designation was simple or 
complex. He should, therefore, have said, " the bulk of 
any single object only, but the largeness of a whole view." 
According to this arrangement, the word only refers, as it 
ought, to "the bulk of any single object" as one idea; 
and the question occurs, what does he mean more than the 
bulk of any single object? to which the answer follows, 
" the largeness of a whole view." It may, however, at the 
same time be observed that, consistently with the practice 
of some of our best writers, who place the adverb before 

* It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admis- 
sible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. 
Thus we may say, " His thoughts were entertained with not only," i. e. 
" with not one thing," viz. " the joys" with which he was surrounded ; 
or, "not only with the joys; but (bot or add) a noble gratitude and 
divine pleasure/' 

Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to 
this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it. 



SYNTAX. 231 

its subject, there seems no impropriety here in saying, " I 
do not mean only," i. e. " one thing," " the bulk of a single 
object, but the largeness of a whole view." 

" The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him," says 
Gibbon, " that by exploits of the same nature, by the de- 
feat of the Nemean lion, and the slaughter of the wild boar 
of Erymanthus, the Grecian Hercules had acquired a place 
among the gods, and an immortal memory among men." 
" They only forgot to observe that, in the first ages of so- 
ciety, a successful war against savage animals is one of the 
most beneficial labours of heroism." In the beginning of 
the latter sentence the adverb only is misplaced. As it 
stands, the meaning is that they were the only persons who 
forgot : it should be " only they forgot to observe ;" i. e. 
" one thing they forgot," namely, " to observe." To this 
erroneous collocation in Gibbon, I shall oppose a similar 
example from Pope, in which the adverb is correctly placed. 
In a letter to Hughes, speaking of the compliments which 
this gentleman had paid to him on his translation of Ho- 
mer, he acquaints him, that he should be ashamed to at- 
tempt returning these compliments ; one thing, however, 
he would observe, namely, that he esteemed Mr. Hughes 
too much not to be pleased with the compliments, which 
he had received from him. His words, therefore, are, " I 
should be ashamed to offer at saying any of those civil 
things, in return to your obliging compliments, in regard 
to my translation of Homer : only I have too great a value 
for you not to be pleased with them ;" where the word only 
introduces the clause, and is equivalent to " one thing is 
true," or " thus much (tantum), I say, I have too great a 
value," &c. Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it pre- 
cedes the pronoun, does not refer to it ; and that Mr. 
Pope's collocation of it is perfectly correct, to express the 
sentiment, which he intended. Had he said, " I only," 
the adverb would have referred to the pronoun, and im- 
plied that he was the only person who valued. Had he 
intended to say, that he merely entertained an esteem for 



232 SYNTAX. 

him, but could not manifest it, then the presence of the 
auxiliary would have been necessary, and he would have 
expressed himself thus, "I do only entertain too great an 
esteem for you ;" that is, "I do only (one thing) entertain 
too great an esteem."" Had he said, " I have only too 
great a value for you," it would be properly opposed to, 
" and not too little."" Had he said, " I have too great a 
value only," then value would be contrasted with some other 
sentiment, as when one says, he " has wealth only, but not 
virtue, 1 ' for example, or any other acquirement. As a 
violation of this rule, I adduce also the following expres- 
sion of a reviewer. " We only discharge our duty to the 
public;" a declaration which, strictly interpreted, means 
"we are the only persons who discharge." It should be, 
" we do only (one thing) discharge our duty ;" for the 
writer intended to say, that he did nothing but discharge 
his duty to the public* In justification of such inaccu- 
racies, it is impertinent to plead, that a little attention will 
prevent misconception. It is the business of every author 
to guard his reader, as far as the language in which he 
writes will permit, from the possibility of misconstruction, 
and to render that attention to the language unnecessary. 
Quintilian's maxim cannot be too often repeated to those 
who, by such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable 
ambiguity, -f 

The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and 
also by Baker, in his " Remarks." " Theism," says 
Shaftesbury, " can only be opposed to polytheism or 
atheism." He ought to have said, observes Baker, " The- 
ism can be opposed only to polytheism or atheism." Dr. 
Blair concurs in opinion with the remarker. I am inclined, 

* The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much to pro- 
duce ambiguity : for, as the adverb, when placed between the noun and 
the attributive, may qualify either the former or the latter, perspicuity 
requires the insertion of the auxiliary. 

f Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, 
curandum. 



SYNTAX. 233 

however, to differ from both ; and think, that the sentence 
should run thus : " Theism can be opposed to polytheism 
only, or atheism ;" where the adverb only refers to the noun 
immediately preceding, and is understood to the other, im- 
plying? tnat these two systems of belief are the only creeds 
to which theism can be opposed. If this be not the proper 
arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite rule can be 
given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be placed 
either before or after the substantive, to which it refers, 
then precision becomes impossible, and we may say, " he 
only? or " only he? to express the same sentiment ; which 
collocations, I have already shown, denote ideas materially 
different. But, if there be a definite and precise rule for 
the position of this word, and if the sense be different, 
according to the collocation of the adverb, then I think it 
will appear, that it ought to be subjoined to the substan- 
tive or pronoun, to which it refers ; and this opinion is 
supported by the authority of Blair himself, in the exam- 
ples which I have just now adduced. For why, unless on 
this principle, does he contend that the word only should 
be placed after the bulk of a single object ? If the adverb 
then be, in this example, rightly placed after the substan- 
tive, or complex name, to which it refers, it ought to have 
the same position assigned to it in every similar instance. 
That the adverb, in the last example, refers to " polythe- 
ism, 1 ' there can be no question ; it should therefore follow, 
and not precede it. 

I am well aware, that many examples may be pro- 
duced, wherein, with an arrangement different from that 
here recommended, the sense would, notwithstanding, be 
perfectly clear ; and, perhaps, Blair's collocation, in the 
last example, may be adduced as an instance. But when 
a rule, conducive to perspicuity, is once established, every 
unnecessary deviation from it should be studiously avoid- 
ed, or, at least, not wantonly adopted. 

The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies, that 
theism is capable of nothing, but of being opposed to 



231 SYNTAX. 

polytheism, or atheism : " Theism can only (one thing, 
namely) be opposed to polytheism or atheism ;" where it 
is evident that only refers to be opposed, agreeably to the 
rule now given. In the same manner, if I say, " he was 
only great," it is implied, that he was nothing but great, 
the adverb being placed before the attributive, to which it 
refers. Hence the question naturally is, what was he not 
besides ? The answer may be, " not good," " not wise," 
" not learned." Were the adverb placed after the pro- 
noun, it would imply, that " he was the only person who 
was great." * 

I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, 
in all cases, preclude ambiguity ; but whenever it becomes 
doubtful, whether the adverb is intended to affect the pre- 
ceding substantive, or the following attributive, a different 
form of expression may be adopted, and the use of the 
auxiliary, along with the principal verb, will, in many 
instances, ensure perspicuity. This expedient, however, 
cannot always be employed. If we say, " The manufac- 

* In this, and similar examples, the word only has been generally 
considered as an adjective, equivalent to solus. Thus, if we say, Me 
solum erat dives, it means, " he was only rich," or " he was nothing but 
rich." If we say, ille solus erat dives, it means, " he only," or " he alone 
was rich." In the latter example, the word only has been termed an ad- 
jective. It is from the equivalence of the words only and alone, in such 
examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in 
all cases, synonymous. They are, by no means, however, of the same 
import. Thus, if we say, " virtue alone is true nobility," it means, 
"virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;" if we say, "virtue only is 
true nobility," it implies, that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The 
expressions, therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed 
in the following passage : 

Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus. — Juvenal, Sat. viii. 

The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the numeral 
term first, as equivalent either to primus or primum ; and also to the 
position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbi- 
ally. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, that Annibal primus, 
and Annibal primum — Alpes transiit, are not expressions mutually con- 
vertible. 



SYNTAX. £35 

turer only was prosperous," it may be uncertain, whether 
the adverb is to restrict the predicate "prosperous" to the 
manufacturer, implying, that he was the only prosperous 
man, or to the verb expressing past time, signifying that 
he was then, but is not now prosperous. If the former be 
the meaning intended, we may say, " he was the only 
prosperous man ;" if the latter, we may say, " the manu- 
facturer was once," or " was then, the only prosperous 
man." 

It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if au- 
thors had adopted one uniform practice, placing the ad- 
verb constantly, either before or after its subject, whether 
a substantive or an attributive.* But, where usage is so 

* Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the 
adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also 
before the substantive. " What he said, was only to commend my pru- 
dence." — Addison. " He did not pretend to extirpate French music, 
but only to cultivate and civilise it." — Addison. " I was only scrib- 
bling." — Johnson. " Not only the thought, but the language is ma- 
jestic." — Addison. "Known only to those, who enjoy." — Johnson. 
"Lay the blame only on themselves." — Johnson. "Witty only by the 
help of speech." — Steele, 

Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same 
collocation in respect to the predicate ; but have, with few or no devi- 
ations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing 
the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, 
that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following ex- 
amples, to which many more might be added, it will appear, that when 
the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; 
when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it ; and 
when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the 
adverb after it. " Only take heed to thyself." " Only he shall not go 
in unto the vail." " Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi." 
. . . . " The thoughts of his heart are only evil." " Thou shalt be only 
oppressed.'' " They might only touch the hem of his garment." .... 
" None followed David, but Judah only." "He only of Jeroboam shall 
come to the grave/' " Against thee only have I sinned." "Take nothing 
for your journey, but a staff only." " David did that only which was 
right." " They only shall be delivered." " This only have I found." 
" If in this life only we have hope." 



%36 SYNTAX. 

divided, and where the adoption of a new and general rule 
would be now liable to insuperable objections, all that can 
be successfully attempted is, in accommodation to existing 
circumstances, to reduce the evil within narrow limits, if 
we cannot, by any precise rule, entirely remove it. With 
this view we would recommend, that, when the adverb 
refers not to a word, but to a sentence or clause, it be 
placed at the beginning of that sentence or clause ; where 
it refers to a predicate, it precede the predicating term ; 
and when it has a reference to a subject, it follow its name 
or description. An observation, however, already made, 
may be here repeated, namely, that in the last case, a 
different collocation may often be adopted without the 
risk of ambiguity, and even with advantage to the struc- 
ture of the sentence. 

Note 10. — Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally 
placed before the adjective to which they refer. This 
rule, however, admits a few exceptions. The adverb 
enough is always placed after its adjective, as, " the reward 
was small enough. 1 " The proper position of this adverb, 
indeed, seems to be immediately after the adjective ; it is 
frequently, however, placed at some distance from it, as, 
" a large house enough." Usage is, indeed, somewhat 
divided on this point, Mr. Baker, and a few others, 
pleading for the following arrangement, fcS a large enough 
house." The former collocation, however, seems far the 
more general ; and is recommended by that rule, by which 
the substantive and adjective should be placed in juxta- 
position, or as near as possible to each other. The latter 
is defended by the principle, that the qualifying adverb 
should be placed close to the adjective, whose signification 
it modifies. This collocation is generally, however, pro- 
nounced a Scotticism ; but it is not peculiar to Scotch 
writers. 

Rule XXI. — Conjunctions have no govern- 
ment. 



SYNTAX. 237 

Note 1. — In giving this rule, I differ from all other 
grammarians, who have erroneously, as I conceive, assign- 
ed them a regimen. Some conjunctions, says Lowth, 
govern the indicative, and some the subjunctive mood. 
This I affirm without hesitation to be a great mistake ; 
for not a single example, I venture to assert, can be pro- 
duced, in which the verb is divested of its indicative form, 
in consequence of its being subjoined to any conjunction. 
The Latins had a form of the verb, which they proper- 
ly enough denominated the subjunctive mood; because, 
where the meaning was unconditionally assertive, they 
employed this form, if the clause was preceded by some 
particular conjunctive or adverbial term. Thus, when 
they said, adeo benevolus erat, ut omnes eum amarent, " he 
was so benevolent, that all men loved him," though the 
assertion, in the latter clause, be evidently unconditional, 
as the English shows, they changed the indicative into 
another form, because the verb is preceded by the con- 
junction ut. No similar example can be produced in 
English. 

Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, conditiona- 
lly, or contingency is implied, the mood should be sub- 
junctive; if certainty, or something determinate and ab- 
solute be signified, the verb should be indicative. Now 
surely, if the sense require a form different from the in- 
dicative, the verb cannot be said to be under the govern- 
ment of the conjunction ; for the verb assumes that form, 
not because preceded by the conjunctive term, or because 
it is under its government, but because the sentiment to 
be expressed requires that phraseology. Whether the 
conditional, or what Lowth terms the subjunctive, be a 
distinct form of the verb, or only an elliptical mode of 
expression, we have already inquired. See p. 136. 

Note 2. — Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference be- 
tween prepositions and conjunctions is, that the former 
couple words, and the latter sentences. This opinion is 
erroneous ; for conjunctions frequently couple words, as in 



238 SYNTAX. 

the following example : " A man of wisdom and virtue is 
a perfect character.'" Here it is not implied, that " a man 
of wisdom is a perfect character ; but a man of wisdom 
combined with virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue." 
That conjunctions, indeed, do not couple at all, in that 
sense at least, in which grammarians have understood the 
term, Mr. Tooke seems to have incontestably proved. 
That they sometimes couple sentences, or that instances 
may be produced, in which Harris's definition will appear 
correct, the following example will serve as an evidence. 
" You, and I, and John rode to town ;" i. e. " you rode," 
" and I rode," " and John rode." But to assert, that this 
is their distinctive property, is to affirm what may be dis- 
proved by numberless examples. If we say, " two and 
two are four." Are two four, and two four ? " A B, 
B C, and C A, form a triangle " Is A B a triangle ? or 
B C ? or C A ? " John and Mary are a handsome couple." 
Is John a couple ? and Mary a couple ? The common 
theory, therefore, is false ; nor is it to be doubted, that con- 
junctions are, in respect to signification, and were origi- 
nally in regard to their regimen, verbs, or words com- 
pounded of nouns and attributives. In explaining them, 
however, I divided them, as the reader may remember, 
into the several classes of adversative, concessive, condi- 
tional, &c. This I did, not only in conformity to general 
usage, and that he might not be a stranger to the names 
assigned to them ; but likewise for this reason, that, though 
they originally formed no distinct species of words, but 
were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and verbs, they 
have now assumed another character, and are construed in 
a different manner. It is necessary, however, that he 
should be acquainted not only with their present use, but 
also with their primitive import, and classification. 

How these words were degraded from their original 
rank, and deemed insignificant, while some, perhaps, lost 
their syntactical power, is a matter, I conceive, of no dif- 
ficult inquiry. For, when the verbs, to which any of these 



SYNTAX. Q39 

words belonged, became obsolete, the words themselves, 
thus separated from their parent stock, and stripped of 
that consequence and authority, which they thence de- 
rived, their extraction becoming daily more dubious, and 
their original value more obscure, sunk by degrees into 
inferior note, and at last dwindled into comparative in- 
significance. Besides, many of them, doubtless, were 
transplanted into our language without the radices ; their 
etymology, therefore, being little known, their primitive 
character, and real import, would soon be involved in 
increasing darkness. 

It is to be considered, also, that those who have dis- 
pensed the laws of grammar in our language, or assumed 
the office of critics, have been generally such as, though 
perhaps sufficiently conversant in Greek and Latin, were 
entirely unacquainted with the Northern languages. Ac- 
customed, therefore, to render the conjunctions and pre- 
positions in Greek or Latin, by synonymous English 
words, and unacquainted with the true character of these 
vernacular terms, their etymons being obsolete, or having 
never been used in our language, it is easy to conceive 
how they would naturally assign to the English words the 
same character and the same name, which were affixed to 
the synonymous Latin terms. Nay, this has been so much 
the case, that we have ascribed an ambiguous character to 
several English words, referring them now to one class, 
then to another, merely because they agree in significa- 
tion with certain Greek and Latin terms, which have been 
severally referred by classical grammarians to different 
orders. That the word whether has uniformly, in our lan- 
guage, the same import, and the same character, denoting 
"which of the two, 1 ' there can be no doubt ; yet, because this 
word answers sometimes to an, anne, num, and sometimes 
to uter, grammarians and lexicographers have accounted it 
both a conjunction and a pronoun. XJtrum in Latin has 
shared the same fate. So far, indeed, has this spirit been 
carried, that we will not admit except, according, concern- 



240 SYNTAX. 






ing, respecting, with many similar terms, to be verbs or 
participles, because prater, secundum, de, are prepositions. 
It is from this propensity to assimilate ours with the Latin 
language, that all these errors have arisen. 

That the words now termed prepositions and conjunc- 
tions were originally verbs, or nouns, or compounds of 
these, Tooke has, in my judgment, incon trover tibly proved. 
This being admitted, it appears to me highly probable, 
that they were primitively construed as such, joined either 
with the nominative or the objective case, as the verbs had 
either a transitive or intransitive meaning ; and that they 
were followed by either single words or clauses. This, 
however, is merely conjecture, founded indeed in the na- 
ture of the words, but not supported by any evidence. In 
process of time, in consequence of that assimilation, which 
naturally takes place between a living language and a dead 
one, much read, much written, and much admired, these 
words, when their origin became obscure, would, as I have 
remarked, be divested of their primitive character, and be 
considered as belonging to those classes, to which the 
synonymous Latin words were referred. Hence their re- 
gimen would likewise undergo a change. It would appear 
awkward and vicious to say now, " I saw nobody but he ;" 
it is not improbable, however, that the mode of expression 
was originally, '" I saw nobody, be out he," i. e. " he be 
out." But I am now indulging in conjecture, the very 
error which chiefly has misled us in our grammatical re- 
searches. One thing, however, is certain, that several 
words, which were originally employed as prepositions or 
conjunctions indifferently, have now acquired a more fixed 
character, and are used but seldom in a double capacity. 
Of this the word without is an example. Thus, it was not 
unusual to say, " without you go, I will not," where the 
term of exclusion, though in truth a preposition prefixed 
to a clause, was considered as a conjunction synonymous 
with nisi. This usage, unless in conversation, is now 
almost entirely relinquished ; and the term without is now 



SYNTAX. 241 

generally employed as a preposition, being prefixed to 
single words. It is likewise certain that in respect to 
signification there is no difference between conjunctions 
and prepositions : vidi neminem nisi eum, is equivalent to 
vidi neminem prater eum. In like manner, " I saw nobody 
but him," is synonymous with " I saw nobody beside him;" 
in which examples the conjunctions nisi and but are per- 
fectly synonymous with prater and beside, which are 
termed prepositions. 

It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunctions 
be alike verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, and if 
many prepositions and conjunctions be in point of meaning 
identical, what forms the ground of distinction between 
them ? It is simply this, that the former are prefixed to 
single words only, as nouns and pronouns, or to clauses 
involving an infinitive mood,* the infinitive being strictly 
the name of the verb ; and that they have a regimen ; 
while the latter are prefixed to clauses, and have no regi- 
men. This is the only distinction between prepositions 
and conjunctions as discriminated in modern use. Their 
original character is sufficiently established by Mr. Tooke. 

I have said that some of these words have, in our lan- 
guage, an ambiguous character, being employed both as 
prepositions and conjunctions. Of this the word than is 
an example. Priestley seems to consider it as a preposi- 
tion, and pleads in favour of the following expression, 
" you are taller than him," not " taller than he." " Since 
it is allowed," says the doctor, " that the oblique case 
should follow prepositions, and since the comparative de- 
gree of an adjective, and the particle than, have certainly 
between them the force of a preposition, expressing the 
relation of one word to another, they ought to require the 
oblique case of the pronoun following, so that, greater 
than me will be more grammatical than greater than i." 

* In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions 
are prefixed to verbs indicative. 

R 



242 SYNTAX. 

Here I cannot concur with the learned author. The same 
argument would prove that major quam me 9 would be more 
grammatical than major quam ego ; a conclusion which is 
opposed by universal authority. The truth is, than must 
be either a conjunction, or a preposition, or both. If a 
conjunction, it can have no government, any more than 
the Latin quam ; unless we confound the distinction which 
has been just now explained, and is universally admitted, 
namely, that conjunctions are distinguished from preposi- 
tions, by their having no government. If it be a prepo- 
sition, no argument is necessary to prove that it may be 
joined with an objective case ; for such is the distinguish- 
ing character of prepositions. If it be either a preposition 
or a conjunction, it follows, that it may be construed either 
with or without a regimen. Lowth, with greater propriety, 
considers it as a conjunction ; and Campbell, in his " Rhe- 
toric," recommends this usage as the only means of pre- 
venting that ambiguity, which necessarily arises from the 
employment of this word as a preposition only. For, if 
we use it as a preposition, we should say, " I love you 
better than him," whether it be meant " I love you better 
than I love him," or " I love you better than he does." 
By using it as a conjunction, the ambiguity is prevented. 
For, if the former sentiment be implied, we say, " I love 
you better than him," i. e. " than I love him ;" if the 
latter, we say, " I love you better than he," i. e. " than 
he loves you." Whatever may have been the original 
character or syntax of this word, since usage is now di- 
vided, some writers employing it as a conjunction, and 
others as a preposition, the grammarian may, consistently 
with his duty, plead for that usage only, which prevents 
ambiguity. 

The rule here recommended is generally violated when 
than is joined with the relative pronoun, as, " Alfred, 
than whom a greater king never reigned." " Beelzebub, 
than whom, Satan excepted, none higher sat." Salmon 
has attempted to account for this almost universal phrase- 



SYNTAX. 243 

ology, by saying, that the expression is elliptical, being 
the same as, " than compared with whom.'" This expla- 
nation is forced and unnatural. It is likewise unneces- 
sary. The simple fact is, that the word than was for- 
merly used as a preposition, and, I believe, more fre- 
quently than it is now. Hence, doubtless, arose this 
phraseology. 

Rule XXII. — Derivatives are generally con- 
strued like their primitives ; as, " it was a happy 
thing for this country, that the Pretender was de- 
feated ;" or " happily for this country the Pretender 
was defeated." Thus also, " to compare with" and 
" in comparison with riches ;" — " to depend on" 
and his " dependence on the court." 

Rule XXIII. — One negative destroys another ; 
or two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative ; 
as, " nor have I no money, which I can spare ;" 
that is, " I have money, which I can spare." — 
" Nor was the king unacquainted with his de- 
signs ;" that is, fe he was acquainted." 

Note 1. — Here our language accords with the Latin. 
In Greek and French, two negatives render the negation 
stronger. 

Note 2. — This rule is violated in such examples as this, 
" Nor is danger ever apprehended in such a government, 
no more than we commonly apprehend danger from thun- 
der or earthquakes. ,, It should be, any more. 

Rule XXIV. — Interjections are joined with the 
objective case of the pronoun of the first person, 
and with the nominative of the pronoun of the 
second, as, " ah me," " oh me," " ah thou wretch," 
I O thou who dwellest." 

r 2 



SYNTAX. 

Syntax being that part of grammar, which teaches rules 
not only for the concord and government, but also for the 
order of words in clauses and sentences, I shall subjoin 
the few following brief directions for the guidance of the 
scholar, respecting arrangement. 

1st, The collocation should never invert the natural 
order of events, or violate the principles of reason and 
metaphysical propriety. It is obvious, for example, that 
no person can write, who cannot read. The ability to do 
the former necessarily implies a capacity to do the latter. 
It is preposterous, therefore, to say with Addison, " There 
will be few in the next generation, who will not at least 
be able to write and read.'" He should have said, " to 
read and write.'' 1 " He was the son of a mother, who had 
nursed him with maternal tenderness, and had born him 
in an hour of the deepest affliction. " The natural order 
of events should have dictated the reverse arrangement. 
There would be a manifest impropriety in saying " Our 
father is well, and alive ;" the former state necessarily im- 
plying the latter. In the following passage, however, it 
is perhaps excusable, the answers particularly correspond- 
ing to the questions. Joseph says to his brothers, " Is 
your father well ? The old man, of whom ye spake, is he 
yet alive ?" They answer, " Thy servant, our father, is 
in good health ; he is yet alive." This error was termed 
by the ancient grammarians hysteron proteron ; and though 
not so palpably, as in the preceding examples, it occurs 
much more frequently, than an inattentive reader is apt 
to imagine. 

2d, The English language admits but few inflexions, 
and therefore little or no room for variety of arrangement. 
The connexion of one word with another is not to be per- 
ceived, as in Greek and Latin, by correspondence of ter- 
mination, but by relative position. This renders it in- 
dispensably necessary, that those words, which are in- 
timately related by sense one to another, should be closely 
connected by collocation. " The cunning of Hannibal 






SYNTAX. 245 

was too powerful for the Pergamenians, who by the same 
kind of stratagem had frequently obtained great victories 
at land." The relative here, by its position, must be un- 
derstood as referring to the Pergamenians ; whereas it is 
intended to refer to Hannibal. The relative clause there- 
fore should have followed the name of the Carthaginian. 
" His picture, in distemper, of calumny, borrowed from 
the description of one painted by Apelles, was supposed to 
be a satire on that cardinal." — Waipole. The error here 
is obvious. He should have said, " His picture of ca- 
lumny." " It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves against 
the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which no- 
thing can protect us against, but the good providence of 
our heavenly Father." — Sherlock. Here the grammatical 
antecedent is treasures ; but it is intended to be accidents. 
The relative is removed from its proper subject. 

3d, As the converse of the preceding rule, it may be 
observed, that those words should be separated, which in 
juxta-position may, at first sight, or first hearing, possibly 
convey a meaning, which the speaker or writer does not 
intend. " I like a well-bred man, who is never disposed 
to mortify or to offend, praised both sorts of food." As 
the two introductory words are capable of two meanings, 
would it not be better to say, " Like a well-bred man . . . 
I praised both sorts of food." I am aware, that the other 
collocation is preferable, where a particular stress is to be 
laid on the principal subject ; but ambiguity is an error, 
which should be studiously avoided, and the meaning 
should not be left to the determination of a comma. 

4th, From the preceding rules, it follows as a corol- 
lary, that no clause should be so placed in a sentence, 
as to be referable either to what precedes, or what follows. 
" The knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a 
compass, and himself in a manner shut out of his own 
house, on the death of his mother, ordered all the apart- 
ments to be flung open." The clause in italics is am- 
biguously placed. 



246 SYNTAX. 

5th, When each of two arrangements is equally fa- 
vourable to perspicuity, and equally consistent with me- 
taphysical propriety, that should be preferred which is 
the more agreeable to the ear. 

6th, Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided ; 
and in elevated style, the clauses should swell towards the 
close of the sentence. This latter rule, however, which 
requires some limitations, belongs to the province of the 
rhetorician, rather than to that of the grammarian. 



PART III. 



CHAPTER I. 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 



Having explained and illustrated the etymology and 
syntax of the English language, as fully as the limits, 
which I have prescribed to myself, will permit, I would 
now request the reader's attention to some additional ob- 
servations. 

The grammar of every language is merely a compilation 
of those general principles, or rules, agreeably to which 
that language is spoken. When I say, a compilation of 
rules, I would not be understood to mean, that the rules 
are first established, and the language afterwards modelled 
in conformity to these. The very reverse is the fact ; 
language is antecedent to grammar. Words are framed 
and combined to express sentiment, before the gram- 
marian can enter on his province. His sole business is, 
not to dictate forms of speech, or to prescribe law to our 
modes of expression ; but, by observing the modes pre- 
viously established, by remarking their similarities and 
dissimilarities, his province is to deduce and explain the 
general principles, and the particular forms, agreeably to 
which the speakers of that language express themselves. 
The philosopher does not determine, by what laws the 
physical and moral world should be governed ; but, by 
the careful observation, and accurate comparison of the 



248 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

various phenomena presented to his view, he deduces and 
ascertains the general principles, by which the system is 
regulated. The province of the grammarian seems pre- 
cisely similar. He is a mere digester and compiler, ex- 
plaining what are the modes of speech, not dictating what 
they should be. He can neither assign to any word a 
meaning different from that, which custom has annexed to 
it ; nor can he alter a phraseology, to which universal 
suffrage has given its sanction. Usage is, in this case, 
law ; usage quern penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma lo- 
quendi. If it were now the practice to say, " I loves, 1 ' 
instead of " I love," the former phraseology would rest on 
the same firm ground, on which the latter now stands ; 
and " I love," would be as much a violation of the rules 
of grammar, or, which is the same thing, of established 
usage, as " I loves" is at present. Regula est, qua rem, 
qua est, breviter enarrat ; non ut ex regula jus sumatur, 
sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat. — Paul. Leg. 1, de Reg. 
Jur. 

Having said thus much to prevent misconception, and 
to define the proper province of the grammarian, I pro- 
ceed to observe, that this usage, which gives law to lan- 
guage, in order to establish its authority, or to entitle 
its suffrage to our assent, must be, in the first place, re- 
putable. 

The vulgar in this, as in every other country, are, from 
their want of education, necessarily illiterate. Their 
native language is known to them no farther, than is re- 
quisite for the most common purposes of life. Their 
ideas are few, and consequently their stock of words poor 
and scanty. Nay, their poverty, in this respect, is not 
their only evil. Their narrow competence they abuse 
and pervert. Some words they misapply, others they 
corrupt ; while many are employed by them, which have 
no sanction, but provincial or local authority. Hence the 
language of the vulgar, in one province, is sometimes 
hardly intelligible in another. Add to this, that debarred 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 249 

by their occupations from study, or generally averse to 
literary pursuits, they are necessarily strangers to the sci- 
entific improvements of a cultivated mind ; and are there- 
fore entirely unacquainted with that diction, which con- 
cerns the higher attainments of life. Ignorant of any 
general principles respecting language, to which they may 
appeal ; unable to discriminate between right and wrong ; 
prone therefore to adopt whatever usage casual circum- 
stances may present ; it is no wonder, if the language of 
the vulgar be a mixture of incongruity and error, neither 
perfectly consistent with itself, nor to themselves uni- 
versally intelligible. Their usage, therefore, is not the 
standard, to which we must appeal for decisive authority ; 
a usage so discordant and various, that we may justly 
apply to it the words of a celebrated critic, 

Bellua multorum es capitum ; nam quid sequar, aut quern ? 
The question then is, what is reputable usage ? On 
this subject philologists have been divided. Dr. Campbell 
appears to me to decide judiciously, when he says, that 
the usage, to which we must appeal, is not that of the 
court, or of great men, nor even of authors of profound 
science, but of those, whose works are esteemed by the 
public, and who may, therefore, be denominated reputable 
authors. By referring to their practice, he appeals to a 
standard less equivocal, than if he had resorted to the 
authority of good writers; for, as he justly observes, 
there may be various opinions respecting the merits of 
authors, when there may be no disagreement concerning 
the rank, which they hold in the estimation of the public ; 
and, because it is the esteem of the public, and not their 
intrinsic merit (though these go generally hand in hand), 
that raises them to distinction, and stamps a value on their 
language. Besides, it is to be observed, that consummate 
knowledge is not always accompanied with a talent for 
communicating it : hence the sentiment ma}' be confessed- 
ly valuable, while the language is regarded as of no au- 
thority. 



250 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

This usage must be, in the second place, national. It 
must not be confined to this or that province ; it must not 
be the usage of this or that district, the peculiarities of 
which are always ridiculous, and frequently unintelligible 
beyond its own limits ; but it must be the general lan- 
guage of the country, intelligible every where, and in no 
place ridiculous. And, though the variety of dialects 
may collectively form a greater number of authorities than 
national usage can boast, taken singly they are much 
fewer. Those, to use Campbell's apposite similitude, who 
deviate from the beaten road, may be incomparably more 
numerous than those who travel in it ; yet, into whatever 
number of by-paths the former may be divided, there may 
not be found in any one of these tracks so many, as travel 
in the king's highway. 

In the third place, this usage must be present. Here it 
may be asked, what is meant by present usage ? Is it the 
usage of the present year, the present age, or the present 
century ? How is it defined, or by what boundary is it 
limited ? In short, how far may we revert in search of 
decisive authority ? may we go back, for example, as far 
as Chaucer, or must we stop at the age of Addison ? 

In determining this matter, the same learned and judi- 
cious critic observes, that regard must be had to the species 
of composition, and the nature of the subject. Poetry is 
properly allowed a greater latitude than prose ; and, there- 
fore, a word, which in prose we should reject as a bar- 
barism, may, with strict propriety, be admitted in verse. 
Here also there are limits which must not be passed ; and, 
perhaps, any word, which cannot plead the authority of 
Milton, or of any contemporary or later poet, may be justly 
regarded as obsolete. In prose, no word, unless the sub- 
ject be art or science, should be employed, which has been 
disused for a period greater than the age of man. This is 
the judgment of the same critic. Against this answer, 
indeed, it is possible to raise a thousand cavils ; and, per- 
haps, we shall be reminded of the poet's strictures on the 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 251 

term ancient in his days.* One thing, however, is certain, 
that, though it be difficult to fix a precise limit, where the 
authority of precedent terminates, and legislative usage 
commences, or to define with precision the age of man, it 
must be acknowledged, that there are limits, in respect to 
usage, which we must not overleap, as there is a certain 
term, which the life of man cannot surpass. 

As there is a period, beyond which precedent in language 
ceases to have authority ; so, on the contrary, the usage of 
the present day is not implicitly to be adopted. Mankind 
are fond of novelty ; and there is a fashion in language, as 
there is in dress. Whim, vanity, and affectation, delight 
in creating new words. Of these, the far greater part soon 
sink into contempt. They figure for a little, like ephe- 
meral productions, in tales, novels, and fugitive papers ; 
and are shortly consigned to degradation and oblivion. 
Now, to adopt every new-fangled upstart at its birth, 
would argue not taste, nor judgment, but childish fond- 
ness for singularity and novelty. On the contrary, if any 
of these should maintain its ground, and receive the sanc- 
tion of reputable usage, to reject it, in this case, would be 
to resist that authority, to which every critic and gram- 
marian must bow with submission. The term mob, for 
example, was, at its introduction, zealously opposed by 
Dean Swift. His resistance, however, was ineffectual ; and 
to reject it now would betray prudish affectation, and 
fruitless perversity. The word inimical, previously to the 
American war, could, I believe, plead, in its favour, only 

* Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos, 
Quid ? qui deperiit minor uno mense vel anno ; 
Inter quos referendus erit ? veteresne poetas, 
An quos et praesens, et postera respuat setas ? 
Ille quidem veteres inter ponetur honeste, 
Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno. 
Utor permisso, caudaeque pilos ut equinoe 
Paullatim vello ; et demo unum, demo etiam unum 
Dum cadat elusus ratione mentis acervi, 
Qui redit ad fastos. Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2. 



252 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

one authority. In some dictionaries, accordingly, it was 
omitted; and in others stigmatized as a barbarism. It has 
now obtained a permanent establishment, and is justly 
admitted by every lexicographer. 

" In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold ; 
Alike fantastic, if too new or old : 
Be not the first, by whom the new are tried, 
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside." 

Pope's Essay on Criticism. 

In short, in this, as in every other question on this 
subject, perspicuity should be our guide. If the subject 
be art or science, or if the composition be intended for 
literary men, then a greater latitude may be allowed, as 
the reader is supposed to be master of the language, in all 
its varieties. But, if the subject be accommodated to 
common capacity, and the composition designed for ordi- 
nary readers, the rule now given, not to employ a word, 
which has been disused for a period greater than the age 
of man, will be deemed, I conceive, rational and necessary. 

The usage, then, which gives law to language, and 
which is generally denominated " good usage, 11 must be 
reputable, national, and present. It happens, however, 
that " good usage" is not always uniform in her decisions, 
and that unquestionable authorities are found for different 
modes of expression. In such cases, the following canons, 
proposed by the same author, will be of considerable ser- 
vice, in enabling the reader to decide, to which phraseology 
the preference is due. These canons I shall give, nearly 
in the words of the author ; and illustrate them, as I pro- 
ceed, by a few apposite examples, partly his, and partly 
my own. 

Canon I. — When the usage is divided, as to any parti- 
cular words or phrases, and when one of the expressions is 
susceptible of a different meaning, while the other admits 
only one signification, the expression, which is strictly 
univocal, should be preferred. 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 253 

For this reason, aught,* for " any thing," is better than 
ought ; scarcely, as an adverb, better than scarce; by con- 
sequence is preferable to of consequence, which signifies also 
" of importance ;" and exceedingly, as an adverb, is prefer- 
able to exceeding. 

For the same reason, to purpose, for " to intend," is 
better than to propose, which signifies also " to lay before," 
or " submit to consideration ;" and proposal, for " a thing 
offered or proposed," is better than " proposition," which 
denotes also " a position," or the " affirmation of any 
principle or maxim." Thus we say, " he demonstrated 
Euclid's proposition," and " he rejected the proposal of 
his friend." 

Agreeably also to this canon, disposal, in common lan- 
guage, when a grant, or giving away, is denoted, or when 
the management of any thing is to be expressed, is prefer- 
able to disposition, which signifies also arrangement, and 
likewise temper of mind; and exposure, as the verbal noun 
from expose, is better than exposition, the verbal noun of 
expound. We should say, " the exposure of a fault," and 
" the exposition of a text." The analogous words com- 
posure, from compose, and composition, from compound, or 
compose, have been suffered to retain their distinct signifi- 
cations. " To speak contemptuously of a person," is better 
than " to speak contemptibly ;" the latter term meaning 
generally, "in a contemptible manner," or " in a manner 
worthy of contempt ;" whereas the former is univocal, and 
denotes disrespectfully, or " in a manner significant of 
contempt." 

For the same reason, obvious, for " evident," is better 
than apparent, which means also " seeming," as opposed 
to "real." 

The term primitive, as equivalent to original, is prefer- 
able to primary. The latter is synonymous with principal, 
and is opposed to secondary ; the former is equivalent to 
original, and is opposed to derivative, or acquired. I shall 
* The Saxon word is awiht, contracted auht, aliquid. 



254 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

illustrate this distinction by a few examples. The words 
falsehood and lie agree in expressing the same primary 
idea, namely, " contrariety to fact ;" but they differ in 
their secondary ideas, the former implying simply " incon- 
sistency with physical truth,'' 1 the latter being a term of 
reproach, expressing " a wilful breach of veracity, or of 
moral truth." To kill, and to murder, agree also in their 
primary ideas, both denoting " the deprivation of life ;" 
but they differ in their secondary, the former implying no 
moral turpitude, the latter denoting an immoral act. 
From these examples it will appear, that primary denotes 
" what is principal or chief," as opposed to " secondary," 
or " subordinate." 

Primitive is equivalent to original ; thus we say, the 
primitive meaning of the word villain, was " a nearer 
tenant to the lord of the manor ;" custom has altered its 
signification, and it now denotes " a wicked fellow." Thus 
the primary and the primitive meaning of words may be 
very different ; these terms, therefore, ought to be duly 
discriminated. 

Intension, for " the act of stretching or straining," is, 
for the same reason, preferable to intention, which signifies 
also " purpose," or " design." " I am mistaken," is fre- 
quently used to denote " I misunderstand," or " I am in 
error ;" but as this expression may also signify, " I am 
misunderstood," it is better to say, " I mistake." 

This canon I would earnestly recommend to the observ- 
ance of every writer, who is solicitous to exclude all un- 
necessary ambiguity, but more emphatically to my junior 
readers, who are peculiarly prone to the violation of this 
rule, misled by false notions of elegance and dignity. 
There prevails at present a foolish and ridiculous, not to 
say absurd, disposition in some writers, to prefer in every 
instance, with no discrimination, long to short words. 
They seem to entertain an inveterate antipathy to mono- 
syllabic terms ; and disdaining whatever savours of Saxon 
origin, are incessantly searching after the sesquipedalia 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. %55 

verba of Greek or Latin extraction, with no regard what- 
ever to precision and perspicuity. Thus many words, 
which cannot be dismissed without detriment to the lan- 
guage, are falling into disuse, and their places supplied 
by equivocal and less appropriate terms. 

Canon II. — In doubtful cases analogy should be re- 
garded. 

For this reason, contemporary is better than cotemporary, 
con being used before a consonant, and co before a vowel ; 
as, concomitant, coeval. 

For the same reason, " he needs,'''' " he dares," " whether 
he will or not" are better than " he need," " he dare," 
" whether he will or no." The last of the three phraseolo- 
gies, here recommended, Priestley thinks exceptionable. 
To me, as to Campbell, the ellipsis appears evident ; thus, 
" whether he will, or will not :" hence " will not" seems 
the only analogical expression. 

Canon III. — When expressions are in other respects 
equal, that should be preferred, which is most agreeable 
to the ear. This requires no illustration. 

Canon IV. — When none of the preceding rules takes 
place, regard should be had to simplicity. On this ground, 
" accept," "approve," "admit," are preferable to " accept 
of," "approve of," "admit of." 

I have already observed, that no expression, or mode of 
speech, can be justified, which is not sanctioned by usage. 
The converse, however, does not follow, that every phrase- 
ology, sanctioned by usage, should be retained ; and, in 
such cases, custom may properly be checked by criticism, 
whose province it is, not only to remonstrate against the 
introduction of any word or phraseology, which may be 
either unnecessary or contrary to analogy, but also to ex- 
trude whatever is reprehensible, though in general use. 
It is by this exercise of her prerogative, that languages 



256 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

are gradually refined and improved ; and, were this denied, 
language would soon become stationary, or more probably 
would hasten to decline. In exercising this authority, she 
cannot pretend to degrade instantly any phraseology, 
which she may deem objectionable; but she may, by re- 
peated remonstrances, gradually effect its dismission. Her 
decisions in such cases may be properly regulated by the 
following canons, as delivered by the same author. 

Canon I. — All words and phrases, particularly harsh, 
and not absolutely necessary, should be dismissed ; as, 
" shamefacedness," " unsuccessfulness," " wrongheaded- 

ness." 

Canon II. — When the etymology plainly points to a dif- 
ferent signification from what the word bears, propriety 
and simplicity require its dismission. For example, the 
word " beholden," taken for " obliged," or the verb " to 
unloose," for " to loose," or " untie," should be rejected. 

Canon III. — When words become obsolete, or are 
never used, but in particular phrases, they should be re- 
pudiated ; as they give the style an air of vulgarity and 
cant, when their general disuse renders them obscure. Of 
these, "lief," "dint," "whit," "moot," " pro and con," 
furnish examples ; as, " I had as lief go," " by dint of ar- 
gument," " not a whit better," " a moot point," " it was 
argued pro and con." These phraseologies are vulgar, 
and savour too much of cant, to be admitted in good 
writing. 

Canon IV. — All words and phrases, which analysed 
grammatically include a solecism, should be dismissed; 
as, " I had rather go." The expression should be, " I 
would," or " I'd rather go ;" and from the latter, the sole- 
cism " I had go," seems by mistake to have arisen, I'd 
being erroneously conceived to be contracted for / had, 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 257 

instead of a contraction for / would. This is the opinion 
of Campbell, and to this opinion I expressed my assent, 
in the former edition of this Treatise. I acknowledge, 
however, that it now appears to me not strictly correct ; 
and that Webster has not questioned its accuracy on in- 
sufficient grounds. In the phrases adduced by Campbell, 
such as, " I'd go," " I'd rather stay," we can readily 
perceive the probability that I'd is a contraction for " I 
would." But in such expressions as " I had like to have 
been caught," which occur not only in colloquial lan- 
guage, but also in authors of considerable name, it is im- 
possible to admit Campbell's explanation. I must ob- 
serve also, that the phraseology, which he censures, occurs 
in some of our earliest writers, and is so frequently found 
in Pope and Swift, that one is tempted to infer, notwith- 
standing its solecistic appearance, that it is genuine Eng- 
lish. It is difficult, however, nay perhaps impossible, to 
reconcile it to analogy. Were I to offer conjecture on 
the subject, I should be inclined to say, that in such 
phrases as " I had go," / had is, by a grammatical figure 
very common in English, put for I would have, or I would 
possess, and that the simple name of the act or state, by an 
ellipsis perhaps of the verbal sign, is subjoined, as the 
object wished, no regard being had to the completion of the 
action ; in the same manner as we say, I would have gone, 
when we wish the action perfected. But, by whatever au- 
thority this phraseology may be recommended, and in 
whatever way it may be reconciled to the rules of syntax, 
it has so much the appearance of solecism, that I decid- 
edly prefer with Campbell the unexceptionable form of 
expression, I would. The phrase / had like appears to me 
utterly irreconcileable with any principle of analogy. 

Canon V. — All expressions, which, according to the 
established rules of the language, either have no meaning, 
or involve a contradiction, or, according to the fair con- 
struction of the words, convey a meaning different from 



£58 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

the intention of the speaker, should be dismissed. Thus, 
when a person says, " he sings a good song," the words 
strictly imply that " the song is good;" whereas the 
speaker means to say, " he sings well." In like manner, 
when it is said, " this is the best part he acts," the sen- 
tence, according to the strict interpretation of the words, 
expresses an opinion, not of his manner of acting, but of the 
part or character which he acts. It should be, " he acts 
this part best," or " this is the part which he acts best." 
" He plays a good fiddle," for " he plays well on the 
fiddle," is, for the same reason, objectionable. 

Of expressions involving a contradiction, the following 
will serve as an example. " There were four ladies in 
company, every one prettier than another." This is im- 
possible. If A was prettier than B, B must have been 
less pretty than A ; but by the expression every one was 
prettier than another, therefore B was also prettier than 
A. Such absurdities as this ought surely to be banished 
from every language.* 

Of those, which have little or no meaning, Campbell 
has given as examples, u currying favour," " having a 
month's mind," " shooting at rovers." Such modes of 
expression, he justly calls trash, the disgrace of any lan- 
guage. 

These canons I have extracted from " Campbell on 
Rhetoric," a book which I would recommend to the reader's 
attentive perusal. 

I proceed to observe, that to write any language with 
grammatical purity, implies these three things. 

1st, That the words be all of that language. 

2dly, That they be construed and arranged, according 
to the rules of syntax in that language. 

3dly, That they be employed in that sense, which usage 
has annexed to them. 

* We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occur- 
ring in Cicero, oftener than once. " Alium alio nequiorem." — Ep. Earn. 
" Aliam alia jucundiorem." — Att. 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 259 

Grammatical purity, therefore, may be violated in three 
ways. 

1st, The words may not be English. This error is 
called barbarism. 

2dly, Their construction may be contrary to the Eng- 
lish idiom. This error is termed solecism. 

3dly, They may be used in a sense different from their 
established acceptation. This error is named impro- 
priety.* 

The barbarism is an offence against lexicography, by 
admitting new words, as, " volupty," " connexity," " ma- 
jestatic;" or by using obsolete words, as, " uneath," 
" erst ;" or an offence against etymology, by impro- 
per inflection, as " teached" for " taught," " oxes" for 
" oxen." 

The solecism is an offence against the rules of syntax, 
as, " I reads,' 1 " you was." 

The impropriety is an offence against lexicography, by 
mistaking the meaning of words or phrases. 

A solecism is regarded by grammarians as a much 
greater offence than either of the others ; because it be- 
trays a greater ignorance of the principles of the language. 
Rhetorically considered, it is deemed a less trespass ; for 
the rhetorician and grammarian estimate the magnitude of 
errors by different standards ; the former inquiring only 
how far any error militates against the great purpose of 
his art — persuasion ; the latter, how far it betrays an 
ignorance of the principles of grammar. Hence with the 
former, obscurity is the greatest trespass ; with the latter, 
solecism, and that species of barbarism which violates the 
rules of etymology.+ 

* Deprehendat, quae barbara, quae impropria, quae contra legem lo- 
quendi composita. — Quintil. lib. i. cap. 5. 

t In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have 
employed the term etymology in the title of this work, and wherever else 
it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection 
of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their 

s 2 



260 CANONS OF CRITICISM, 

derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signifi- 
cation in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the term 
analogy to express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or 
similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be pro- 
per ; but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and 
the collocation, generally termed the syntax of words, it cannot be con- 
sidered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches 
merely inflection, or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading prin- 
ciple, on which every grammatical rule is founded ; and those, who have 
employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not 
been observant of strict consistency. 



261 



CHAPTER II. 

CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature 
of that usage which gives law to language ; and having 
proposed a few rules for the student's direction in cases 
where usage is divided, and also where her authority may 
be justly questioned, and checked by criticism; I intend, 
in the following pages, to present the young reader with 
a copious exemplification of the three general species of 
error against grammatical purity, arranging the examples 
in the order of the parts of speech. 



SECTION L 

THE NOUN. 

BARBARISM. 

" I rode in a one-horse chay." It ought to be " a one- 
horse chaise." There is no such word as chay. 

" That this has been the true and proper deception 
of this word, I shall testify by one evidence." — Hammond. 
Acception is obsolete ; it ought to be acceptation. 

" Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combina- 
tion of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage." — 
Wealth of Nations. Wage is obsolete ; the plural only is 
used. 

" Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, 
with the daughter of the Italian prince." — Gibbon. Nup- 



262 CRITICAL REMARKS 

tial has not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the 
days of Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The 
plural nuptials is the proper word. 

" He showed that he had a full comprehension of the 
whole of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the 
parts to the whole." — Sheridan's Life of Sivift. Adaption 
is obsolescent, if not obsolete: adaptation is the proper 
term. Adaption is frequently employed by Swift, from 
whom Sheridan seems to have copied it. 

" Which even his brother modernists themselves, 

like ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the 
very garret I am now writing in." — Swift. " Ungrate" is 
a barbarism. " Ingrate" is to be found in some of our 
English poets as an adjective, and synonymous with " un- 
grateful ;" but " ungrate," as a substantive, is truly bar- 
barous. Almost equally objectionable is Steele's use of 
stupid as a substantive plural. " Thou art no longer to 
drudge in raising the mirth of stupids." — Spectator, No. 
468. And also of ignorant, " The ignorants of the lower 
order." — Ibid. 

Pope also says, in one of his letters, " We are curious 
impertinents in the case of futurity." This employment 
of the adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanc- 
tioned by general use, is now properly avoided by our 
most reputable writers. It tends to confusion, where dis- 
tinction is necessary. 

" The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims." The 
Hebrews form the plural of masculines by adding im; 
" cherubims," therefore, is a double plural. " Seraphims," 
for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these 
words being " cherub" and " seraph," the plural is either 
" cherubs" and " seraphs," or " cherubim" and " seraphim." 
Milton has uniformly avoided this mistake, which circum- 
stance Addison, in his criticisms on that author, has over- 
looked ; nay, he has, even with Milton's correct usage 
before him, committed the error. " The zeal of the 
seraphim? says he, " breaks forth in a becoming warmth 
of sentiments and expressions, as the character which is 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 263 

given of him" &c. Here " seraphim," a plural noun, is 
used as singular. It should be, " the zeal of the seraph." 

" Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes 
about a cabinet of medals, descanting upon the value, the 
rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces." Authen- 
ticalnessy though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and 
may, perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be pro- 
perly dismissed, as a harsh and unnecessary term. 

" He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest ac- 
quaintances in life." — Sheridan's Life of Swift. Acquaint- 
ances is now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to 
the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did 
not disclaim it. " A young student from the inns of court, 
who has often attacked the curate of his father's parish, 
with such arguments as his acquaintances could furnish." 
— Rambler. We find it also in Steele ; thus, " she pays 
every body their own, and yet makes daily new acquaint- 
ances."— Tatler, No. 109. 

" I am sure, that the farmeress at Bevis would feel 

emotions of vanity if she knew you gave her the 

character of a reasonable woman." — Lord Peterborrow to 
Pope. This, I believe, is the only passage in which far- 
meress is to be found ; but, though it may therefore be 
pronounced a barbarism, the author could not have ex- 
pressed himself so clearly and so concisely, in any other 
way. We every now and then, as Johnson observes, feel 
the want of a feminine termination. 

" The bellowses were broken." The noun, as here in- 
flected, is barbarous. "Bellows" is a plural word, denot- 
ing a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. 
There is, therefore, no such word as " bellowses." 

SOLECISM.* 

" I have read Horace Art of Poetry." This expression 
may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, 

* The reader is requested to observe, that under " solecism," I have 
included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntac- 
tical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of " inaccuracies." 



264 CRITICAL REMARKS 

by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. 
It should be, " Horace's Art of Poetry." " These are 
ladies ruffles/' " this is the kings picture, 1 ' are errors of 
the same kind, for " ladies 1 ruffles, 11 " the king's picture. 11 

" These three great genius's flourished at the same time." 
Here " genius's," the genitive singular, is improperly used 
for " geniuses, 11 the nominative plural. 

" They have of late, 't is true, reformed, in some mea- 
sure, the gouty joints and darning work of whereuntd' s, 
whereby "s, thereof s, therewith? s 9 and the rest of this kind. 11 
— Shaftesbury. Here also the genitive singular is impro- 
perly used for the objective case plural. It should be, 
whereuntos, wherebys, thereofs, therewiths. 

" Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, 
corrupted the sciences. 11 — Adams's History of England. 

" Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have 
preserved separate exemplars of it." — Geddes's Preface to 
his Translation of the Bible. The former of these passages 
involves a palpable error, the word 4< people, 11 here equiva- 
lent to nation, and in the singular number, being joined 
with both, or " the two, 11 a term of plurality. In the 
latter, this error is avoided, the noun being employed in 
the plural number. This usage, however, though sanc- 
tioned by the authority of our translators of the Bible in 
two passages, seems now to be obsolete. States, tribes, 
nations, appear to be preferable. 

" I bought a scissars," " I want a tongs, 11 " It is a tat- 
tered colours," involve a palpable solecism, the term signi- 
ficant of unity being joined with a plural word. It should 
be, " a pair of scissars, 11 " a pair of tongs," " a pair of 
colours.' 1 

" They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things 
together in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to 
a depraved and debauched appetite. 11 — Swift. 

We say, " comply with ;" therefore, by Rule xvii. " in 
compliance with" is the analogical form of expression, and 
has the sanction of classical usage. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 265 

" The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the 
obedience of his reason." — Steele. Analogy requires " obe- 
dience to. 1 "" We say, obedient to command: the person 
obeying is expressed in the genitive, or with the preposi- 
tion of; and the person or thing obeyed with the preposi- 
tion to, as, " a servant's obedience," or " the obedience of 
a servant to the orders of his master." 

" Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." 
— Bible. " Attendance" and " attention" are verbal nouns, 
derived from " attend." When the verb signifies " to re- 
gard," or " to fix the mind upon," it is followed by to, as, 
" he attends to his studies," and the verbal noun is " atten- 
tion," construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same man- 
ner as the verb. Thus, " he gives attention to his studies." 
But when " to attend" signifies " to wait on," or " be pre- 
sent at," it is followed by on, upon, or at, and is sometimes 
used without the preposition. 

Thus, " if any minister refused to admit a lecturer 
recommended to him, he was required to attend upon the 
committee." — Clarendon. 

" He attended at the consecration with becoming gra- 
vity." — Hume. In this sense the verbal noun is " attend- 
ance," and construed like the verb, when it bears this sig- 
nification. In the sentence, therefore, last quoted, syntax 
requires, either " attendance at" or " attention to." The 
latter conveys the meaning of the original. 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent 
on every Christian." It should be, " the observance." 
Both substantives are derived from the verb " to observe." 
When the verb means " to keep," or " obey," the verbal 
noun is " observance ;" when " to remark," or " to notice," 
the noun is " observation." 

" They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful 
avocations." — Staunton's Embassy to China. 

The word avocation is frequently, as in the example be- 



266 CRITICAL REMARKS 

fore us, confounded with vocation. By the latter is clearly- 
signified " calling," " trade,' 1 " employment,'" " business," 
" occupation ;" and by the former is meant whatever with- 
draws, distracts, or diverts us from that business. No 
two words can be more distinct ; yet we often see them 
confounded. 

" A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his 
honour." — Henry's History of Britain. The term suppli- 
cation is in our language confined to what Johnson calls 
" petitionary worship," and always implies request, en- 
treaty, or petition. The Latin term supplicatio has a 
more extensive meaning, and likewise supplicium, each de- 
noting not only prayer, strictly so called, but also thanks- 
giving. The latter of these should have been employed 
by the author. 

" Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, 
and cherished by the greatest genii among men." — Black- 
weirs Mythology. Genii means spirits. (See p. 20.) It 
ought to be geniuses. 

I have already remarked (see p. 33), that, when the 
primary idea implied in the masculine and feminine terms 
is the chief object of attention, and when the sex does not 
enter as a matter of consideration, the masculine term 
should be employed, even when the female is signified. 
Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique on the 
poems of Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, " such 
is the poet's request." This is strictly proper. He con- 
siders her merely as a writer of poetry. But, were we to 
say, " as a poet she ought not to choose for her theme the 
story of Abelard," we should be chargeable with error. 
For this would imply, that the story of Abelard is not a 
fit subject for a poem, — a sentiment manifestly false. 
There is no incongruity between the subject and poetry, 
but between the subject and female delicacy. We ought, 
therefore, to say, " as a poetess, she ought not to choose 
for her theme the story of Abelard." 

" It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 267 

story." " Veracity"" is applicable to persons only, and 
properly denotes that moral quality or property, which 
consists in speaking truth, being in its import nearly 
synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly perverted 
term, honour : it is, therefore, improperly applied to 
things. It should be " the truth of this story." The 
former denotes moral, and the latter physical truth. We 
therefore say " the truth 1 ' or " verity of the relation or 
thing told," and " the veracity of the relater." 

Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his 
translation of the Iliad, " A view of the Epic Poem," 
misled, it is probable, by Bossu's title of a similar work, 
" Traite du Poeme Epique." Poem denotes the work or 
thing composed ; " the art of making," which is here in- 
tended, is termed poesy. 

An error similar to this occurs in the following pas- 
sage : " I apprehend that all the sophism which has been 
or can be employed, will not be sufficient to acquit this 
system at the tribunal of reason." — Bolingbroke. " Soph- 
ism" is properly defined by Johnson, u a fallacious argu- 
ment ;" sophistry means " fallacious reasoning," or u un- 
sound argumentation." The author should have said 
" all the sophistry," or " all the sophisms." 

" The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in 
riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin.'' — Campbell's 
Rhet. As the properties or qualities of the languages are 
here particularly compared, I apprehend, that the abstract 
" richness" would be a more apposite term. " Riches" 
properly denotes " the things possessed," or " what con- 
stitutes the opulence of the owner ;" " richness" denotes 
the state, quality, or property of the individual, as pos- 
sessed of these. The latter, therefore, appears to me the 
more appropriate term. 

" He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the just- 
ice of my remark." The justness would, agreeably to 
Canon 1st, be the preferable word, the former term being 
confined to persons, and the latter to things. 

s6 



268 



CRITICAL REMARKS 



" The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an un- 
common levity in our usual conversation." — Spectator. 
It ought to be " The neglect." " Negligence" implies a 
habit ; " neglect" expresses an act. 

" For I am of opinion that it is better a language 
should not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually 
changing ; and we must give over at one time, or at length 
infallibly change for the worse ; as the Romans did when 
they began to quit their simplicity of style for affected 
refinements, such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other 
authors, which ended, by degrees, in many barbarities." 
Barbarity, in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal 
term, barbarism, is much preferable. 

Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, " to obtain the ac- 
ceptation of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay 
him tythes." Acceptation in this sense is obsolete, or at 
least nearly out of use : it should he favour or acceptance. 

" She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke 
and duchess, by taking the disposition of employments 
into her own hands." — Swift. Disposal, for reasons al- 
ready assigned,* is much better. 

" The conscience of approving one's self a benefactor to 
mankind, is the noblest recompense for being so." Con- 
science is the faculty by which we judge our own conduct. 
It is here improperly used for " consciousness," or the 
perception of what passes within ourselves. 

" If reason were as plenty as blackberries, I would 
give no man a reason on compulsion." — Shakspeare. 
Here plenty, a substantive, is improperly used for 
plentiful. 

" It had a prodigious quantity of windows." — Spence's 
Excursions. It should be number. This error frequently 
occurs in common conversation. We hear of " a quantity 
of people," of "a quantity of troops," " a quantity of 
boys and girls," just as if they were to be measured by 
the bushel, or weighed in the balance. 
* See Canon I. p. 253. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 269 

" To-morrow will suit me equally well." If we enquire 
here for a nominative to the verb, we find none, morrow 
being under the government of the preposition. This 
error is so common, that we fear its correction is hopeless. 
The translators of the Bible seem carefully to have avoided 
this inaccuracy : — " To-morrow {i. e. " on the morrow") 
the Lord shall do this ;" " And the Lord did that thing on 
the morrow." Analogy requires, that we should say, "The 
morrow will suit me equally well." 

" I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon's History." This 
is a Scotticism for Dublin edition; and so palpable, that 
I should not have mentioned it, were it not found in au- 
thors of no contemptible merit. 

" I have no right to be forced," said a citizen to a ma- 
gistrate, " to serve as constable." This perversion of the 
word right, originally, we believe, a cockneyism, is gra- 
dually gaining ground, and is found in compositions, into 
which nothing but extreme inattention can account for its 
introduction. A right implies a just claim, or title to 
some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, sup- 
posed by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. 
We should smile, if we heard a foreigner, in vindication 
of his innocence, say, " I have no right to be impri- 
soned ;" " I have no right to be hanged." The perver- 
sion here is too palpable to escape our notice. But we 
hear a similar, though not so ridiculous an abuse of the 
word, in common conversation without surprise. " I have 
no right," says one, " to be taxed with this indiscretion ;" 
" I have no right," says another, " to be subjected to this 
penalty." These phraseologies are absurd. They in- 
volve a contradiction ; they presume a benefit, while 
they imply an injury. The correlative term on one side 
is right, and on the other obligation : a. creditor has a 
right to a just debt, and the debtor is under an obli- 
gation to pay it. Instead of these indefensible phrase- 
ologies, we should say, " I am not bound," or "I am 
under no obligation to submit to this penalty ;" — "I 



270 CRITICAL REMARKS 

ought not to be taxed with this indiscretion," or " you 
have no right to subject me," "you have no right to 
tax me." 

Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of 
government (Book viith), says, " but the description of 
their policy and laws is so inaccurate and contradictory, 
that it is difficult to delineate the form of their constitution 
with any precision." I should here prefer the appropriate 
and univocal term polity, which denotes merely the form 
of government ; policy means rather wisdom or prudence, 
or the art of governing, which may exist where there is no 
settled polity. 

" A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepre- 
sentations which have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, 
with an exposition of the ignorance of the new critical 
junto " — Here, agreeably to Canon I, (see p. 253), I should 
prefer exposure, as being a word strictly univocal. It 
would conduce to perspicuity were we to consider expo- 
sition as the verbal noun of expound, and confine it en- 
tirely to explanation, and exposure as the verbal noun of 
expose, signifying the act of setting out, or the state of 
being set out or exposed. 



SECTION II. 

THE ADJECTIVE. 

BARBARISM. 

" Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an 
insignificant wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding 
himself on contradicting others." — Locke. Opiniatre is a 
barbarism ; it should be opinionative. 

" And studied lines, and fictious circles draw." — Prior. 
The word fictions is of Prior's own coining; it is bar- 
barous. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 271 

" The punishment that belongs to that great and cri- 
minous guilt is the forfeiture of his right and claim to all 
mercies."' 1 — Hammond. Criminous is a barbarism. 

" Which, even in the most overly view, will appear in- 
compatible with any sort of music. ,, — Karnes's Elements. 
Overly is a Scotticism ; in England it is now obsolete. 
The proper term is cursory or superficial. 

" Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor 
for the cure of bursten children ?" — Steele. The parti- 
ciple bursten is now obsolete. 

" Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alex- 
ander's court, and hated the king, being asked, how one 
should become the famousest man in the world, answered, 
By taking away him that is." — Bacon's Apophth The 
superlative is a barbarism ; it should be, " most fa- 



SOLECISM. 

" I do not like these kind of men.' 1 Here the plural 
word these is joined to a noun singular ; it should be, 
" this kind." " Those sort," " these kind of things," are 
gross solecisms. 

" Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill man- 
ners, to differ in opinion from the majority of either, or 
both houses ; and that ill manners I have often been 
guilty of." — Swifts Examiner. Here is another egregi- 
ous solecism. He should have said, " those ill manners," 
or " that species of ill manners." 

" The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of 
provision." — SheridarCs Life of Swift. We say, " to 
furnish zvith" not " to furnish of." Furnished and un- 
furnished are construed in the same manner. It should 
be, " unfurnished with? 

" A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted 
by its parents." This form of expression frequently oc- 
curs, and is an egregious solecism. It should be, " a 
child four years old," or " aged four years," not " of four 



272 CRITICAL REMARKS 

years." Those who employ this incorrect phraseology, 
seem misled by confounding two very different modes 
of expression, namely, " a child of four years of age," or 
" of the age of four years," and " a child four years old." 
The preposition of is requisite in the two first of these 
forms, but inadmissible in the third. They would not 
say, "I am of four years old," but " I am four years 
old ;" hence, consistently, they ought to say, " a child 
four years old." "At ten years old, I was put to a gram- 
mar school." — Steele. Grammatically this is, "I old at 
ten years." 

" This account is very different to what I told you." 
" I found your affairs had been managed in a different 
manner than what I advised." Both these phraseologies 
are faulty. It should be in each, " different from" 
The verb " to differ" is construed with from before the 
second object of disparity; the adjective therefore should 
(by Rule xvii.) be construed in the same manner. 

" These words have the same sense of those others." 
Same should be followed with as, with, or the relatives 
who, which, that. It ought, therefore, to be, " as those," 
or " with those," or " have the sense of those others." 

" I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind 
memory, and good offices, though I were never to see or 
hear the effects of them, like the trust we have in benevo- 
lent spirits, who, though we never see or hear them, we 
think are constantly serving and praying for us." — Pope^s 
Letters to Atterbury. Like can have no grammatical re- 
ference to any word in the sentence but /, and this re- 
ference is absurd. He should have said, " as, or just as, 
we trust in benevolent spirits." 

" This gentleman rallies the best of any man I know." 
— Addison. The superlative must be followed by of, the 
preposition implying out of a plurality, expressed either 
by a collective noun, or a plural number. But here we 
have a selection denoted by of, and the selection to be 
made out of one. This is absurd. It should be, " better 
than any other" — the best of all men — " I know ;" " this 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 2?3 

gentleman, of all my acquaintance, rallies the best ;" or 
" of all my acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so 
well, as this gentleman." 

" Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are 
best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with 
their breath."— Preface to A Tale of a Tub. 

" Here," says Sheridan, " the disjunction of the word 
best from the word qualified makes the sentence uncouth, 
which would run better thus, c are, of all others, best 
qualified.' " So far Mr. Sheridan is right ; but he has left 
uncorrected a very common error. The antecedent sub- 
ject of comparison is here absurdly referred at once to the 
same, and to a different aggregate, the word of referring 
it to others, to which it is opposed, and to which there- 
fore it cannot, without a contradiction, be said to belong. 
The sentence, therefore, involves an absurdity : either the 
word others should be expunged, when the sentence will 
run thus, " Those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are, 
of all, best qualified to revenge that defect;" or, if the 
word others be retained, the clause should be, " are better 
qualified than all others."* 

The phraseology here censured, is admissible in those 
cases only where a previous comparison has been made. 
If we say, " To engage a private tutor for a single pupil, 
is, perhaps, of all others, the least eligible mode of giving 
literary instruction," {Barrow on Education,) without mak- 
ing that previous discrimination, which the word others 
implies, we commit an error. But we may say with pro- 
priety, " I prefer the mode of education adopted in our 
public schools ; and of all other modes, to engage a private 
tutor appears to me the least eligible." 

* We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam 
" the comeliest of men since born," Eve also " the fairest of her daugh- 
ters," and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork almanack-maker gravely 
tells us, " that the principal republics in Europe, are Venice, Holland, 
and America ;" yet the error here reprehended is precisely of the same 
species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. See p. 78. 

T 



274 CRITICAL REMARKS 

IMPROPRIETV. 

" They could easier get them by heart, and retain them 
in memory." — Adams's History of England. Here the 
adjective is improperly used for the adverb ; it ought to 
be " more easily."" Swift commits a similar error, when 
he says, " Ned explained his text so full and clear, 1 ' for 
" so fully and clearly." 

" Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of 
address, to my patrons, the true modern critics, and may 
very well atone for my past silence, as well as for that, 
which I am like to observe for the future." — Swift, Like, 
or similar, is here improperly used for likely, a word in 
signification nearly synonymous with probable. We say, 
" he is likely to do it," or " it is probable he will do it." 

" Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself un- 
seemly." Here the adjective unseemly is improperly used 
for the adverb, denoting " in an unseemly manner." Un- 
seemlily not being in use, the word indecently should be 
substituted. 

" The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty 
pillage of a few farms." Other is redundant ; it should 
be, " no subsistence but," or " no other subsistence than." 
In the Saxon language, and the earlier English writers, 
the word other is not uniformly followed by than, but 
sometimes with but, before, save, except,* thus, Mark xii. 

* It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (see p. 49,) 
that the English word other is the Saxon often., and that this word with the 
Arabic ahd, the Hebrew had or ahad, the Saxon o&>e, the Teutonic odo, 
the Swedish udda, and probably the Latin aut, have all sprung from the 
same source, or that one of these is the parent of the rest, denoting unus 
or singulus, " one," or " one by itself." Of the origin of the Saxon other, 
Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative 
from offie. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved 
the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this 
opinion, that the word o&fte is uniformly found in Saxon, signifying aut. 
Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only from the 
similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, that 
had, ahd, aut, oftfte, often., other, or, are all members of one and the same 
family. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 275 

32, (< thaer an God is, and nis other butan him, 1 '' thus ren- 
dered in the Bishops' Translation, " there is one God, and 
there is none but he," and in the common version, " none 
other but he," In the book of Common Prayer we have, 
" thou shalt have no other gods, but me ;" and the same 
form of expression occurs in Addison, Swift, and other 
contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of late to 
have decided almost universally in favour of than. This 
decision is not only consistent with analogy, if the word 
other is to be deemed a comparative, but may also, in some 
cases, be subservient to perspicuity. No other but, no other 
beside, no other except, are equivalent expressions, and do 
not perhaps convey precisely the same idea with none bat, 
no other than. Thus, if we take an example similar to 
Baker's, and suppose a person to say, " A called on me 
this morning," B asks, " No one else ?" " No other," 
answers A, " but my stationer." Here the expression, as 
Baker remarks, seems strictly proper, the words no other 
having a reference to A. But if the stationer had been 
the only visitor, he should say, " none but," or " no other 
than the stationer called on me this morning." This is 
the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes 
to establish, is sufficiently evident ; but that it is war- 
ranted by strict analysis, I do not mean to affirm. 

" He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two 
days." No is here improperly used for any, two negatives 
making an affirmative : it should be, " nor drunk any 
water." 

" The servant must have an undeniable character." Un- 
deniable is equivalent to incontrovertible, or "not admitting 
dispute." An " undeniable character," therefore, means, 
a character which cannot be denied or disputed, whether 
good or bad : it should be, " unexceptionable." 

*• But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an ob- 
ject, inadequate to your strength." — Watson's History of 
Philip III. Inadequate means " falling short of due pro- 
portion," and is here improperly used in a sense nearly the 

t 2 



276 CRITICAL REMARKS 

reverse. It should be, " to which your strength is inade- 
quate," or " superior to your strength.*" 

" I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend." I 
concur with Baker in considering this expression to be in- 
correct. A may be a friend to B and also to C, and is 
therefore a friend common to both ; but not their mutual 
friend : for this implies reciprocity between two individuals, 
or two parties. The individuals may be mutually friends ; 
but one cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke 
more properly says, " I esteem the memory of our common 
friend." This is, doubtless, the correct expression ; but, 
as the term common may denote " ordinary, 11 or " not 
uncommon, 11 the word mutual, though not proper, may, 
perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated. 

The superlatives lowest and lowermost, highest and up- 
permost, appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus 
we say, " the lowest house in the street, 11 when we mean 
the lowest in respect to measurement, from the basement 
to the top, and also the lowest in regard to position, the 
inferiority being occasioned by declivity. Now it appears 
to me, that when we refer to dimension, we should say, 
lowest or highest ; and when we refer to site or situation, 
we ought to say, lowermost or uppermost. 

" It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the 
scholars, than to the knowledge of the masters. 11 — Sioift. 
It should be rather, " it was owing, 11 or " it is ascribable. 11 
The author had previously been speaking of the first in- 
structors of mankind, and questioning their claim to the 
title of sages. To say, then, that their right to this title, 
or that the appellation itself, " was due more to ignorance 
than to knowledge," is manifestly improper. Swift, how- 
ever, was not singular in using the adjective in this sense. 
Steele, and some other contemporary writers, employed it 
in the same acceptation. "The calamities of children are 
due to the negligence of the parents. 11 — Spectator, No. 431. 
It is now seldom or never employed as equivalent to 
" owing to," or " occasioned by. 11 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 277 

" Risible," " ludicrous," and " ridiculous, 1 ' are fre- 
quently confounded. Risible denotes merely the capacity 
of laughing, and is applied to animals having the faculty 
of laughter, as, " man is a risible creature." Ludicrous is 
applicable to things exciting laughter simply ; ridiculous 
to things exciting laughter with contempt. The tricks of 
a monkey are ludicrous, the whimsies of superstition are 
ridiculous. " The measure of the mid stream for salmon 
among our forefathers is not less risible." — Karnes's Sketches. 
He should have said " ridiculous." 

We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety 
of using the numeral adjective one, as referring to a plu- 
rality of individuals, denoted by a plural noun. See p. 51. 
There is something which is not only strange to the ear, 
but also strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying,* " The 
Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest ; the one 
were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus." At the 
same time, it must be acknowledged, that there seems to 
be an inconsistency in questioning this phraseology, and 
yet retaining some others, which appear to be analogous 
to it, and can plead in their defence reputable usage. We 
say, " The Romans and the Carthaginians contended with 
each other ;" and " The English, the Dutch, and the 
Spaniards disputed, one with another, the sovereignty of 
the sea." Here each and one clearly refer to a plurality, 
expressed by a noun plural. A similar example occurs in 
the following sentence : " As the greatest part of mankind 
are more affected by things, which strike the senses, than 
by excellencies, that are discovered by reason and thought, 
they form very erroneous judgments, when they compare 
one with the other." — Guardian. If we inquire, what one ? 
we find the answer to be " things." Here is a manifest 

* In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termina- 
tion, the expression " les uns et les autres" joined to a plural verb is in 
perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, are utrique and 
alteri, referring to a plurality. But unus was never in this sense used as 
a plural. 



278 CRITICAL REMARKS 

incongruity, which might have been prevented, by saying, 
" one subject with the other," or " when they compare 
them together ." As this construction of one, referring to 
a noun plural, seems irreconcileable with the notion of 
unity, and may be avoided, it becomes a question, whether 
this phraseology ought to be imitated. The subject, as 
far as I know, has not been considered by any of our 
grammarians. 

" That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent 
to all." Apparent is sometimes used in this sense. The 
word, however, is equivocal, as it denotes seeming, opposed 
to real; and obvious, opposed to doubtful or obscure. "I 
consider the difference between him and the two authors 
above mentioned, as more apparent than real.'" — Campbell. 
Here apparent is opposed to real; and to this sense it 
would be right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity would 
be effectually prevented. "But there soon appeared very 
apparent reasons for James's partiality. 1 "' — Goldsmith. 
Obvious, or evident, would unquestionably be preferable. 

" How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does 
not find itself in similar circumstances ? Very rare in- 
deed." — Truster's Preface to Synon. The adjective rare is 
here improperly used for the adverb. As the question, 
indeed, is adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising, 
that the author should answer adjectively : it ought to be, 
" very rarely." 

" No man had ever less friends, and more enemies." 
Less refers to quantity, fewer to number ; it should be, 
"fewer friends." 

" The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of 
virtuous actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, 
which it takes in the performance of its duty, for delights 
of a much more inferior and unprofitable nature." — Addi- 
son. Inferior implies comparison, but it is grammatically 
a positive. When one thing is, in any respect, lower than 
another, we say, " it is inferior to it ;" and if a third thing 
were still lower, we should say, " it is still more inferior." 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 279 

But the author is comparing only two subjects ; he should 
therefore have said, '* of a much inferior, and more un- 
profitable nature." The expression " more preferable," 
is for the same reason faulty, unless when two degrees of 
excess are implied. 

The adjectives agreeable, suitable, conformable, inde- 
pendent, consistent, relative, previous, antecedent, and 
many others, are often used, where their several deriva- 
tive adverbs would be more properly employed ; as, " he 
lives agreeable to nature," " he wrote to me previous to 
his coming to town," " tolerable good," " he acted con- 
formable to his promise." It is worthy of remark, how- 
ever, that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to 
some of these phraseologies ; a circumstance which many 
of our grammarians have overlooked, if we may judge 
from the severity, with which they have condemned them. 
If I say, " he acted according to nature," the expression 
is deemed unobjectionable ; but is not according a parti- 
ciple, or, perhaps, here more properly a participial? 
" He acted contrary to nature" is also considered as fault- 
less ; but is not contrary an adjective? Were we to rea- 
son on abstract principles, or to adopt what is deemed the 
preferable phraseology, we should say, " contrarily" and 
" accordingly to nature." This, however, is not the case. 
" Contrary to nature," " according to nature," and many 
similar phraseologies, are admitted as good : why, then, is 
" conformable to nature," an expression perfectly ana- 
logous, so severely condemned? Johnson has, indeed, 
uselessly enough in my opinion, called according a pre- 
position ; fearful, however, of error, he adds, it is properly 
a participle, for it is followed by to. According is always 
a participle, as much as agreeing, and can be nothing else. 
Because secundum in Latin is termed a preposition, hence 
some have referred according to the same species of words. 
With equal propriety might in the power of be deemed a 
preposition, because penes in Latin is so denominated. 
Now, if " he acted contrary to nature" and " according 



£80 CRITICAL REMARKS 

to nature*" be deemed unexceptionable expressions, with 
many others of the same kind, which might be adduced, 
it follows that, " he acted agreeable," " conformable,'" 
" suitable to nature," may plead in their favour these 
analogous phraseologies. I offer these observations, in 
order to show that, misled by abstract reasonings, or by 
the servile imitation of another language, we sometimes 
hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes of ex- 
pression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular 
idiom. I would not, however, be understood to mean, 
that the adverb is not, in these cases, much to be pre- 
ferred, when it can be employed consistently with good 
usage. For, if we say, " he acts agreeable to the laws of 
reason," the question is, who or what is agreeable ? the 
answer, according to the strict construction of the sen- 
tence, is he ; but it is not he, but his mode of acting, of 
which the accordance is predicated : agreeably is, there- 
fore, the preferable term. 

I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed 
to modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes 
particularly exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead 
aught in its favour, as, " indifferent good," " tolerable 
strong," instead of " indifferently good," and " tolera- 
bly strong." The following phraseology is extremely 
inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on any principle of 
analogy : " Immediately consequent to the victory, Dro- 
gheda was invested." — Belshani's History. What was 
consequent ? Grammatically " Drogheda." 

" No other person, beside my brother, visited me to- 
day." Here the speaker means to say that no person, be- 
side his brother, visited him to-day ; but his expression 
implies two exceptions from none, the terms other and be- 
side each implying one, and can, therefore, be correct on 
this supposition only, that some one beside his brother 
had visited him. It should be rather, " no person be- 
side." 

" The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 281 

performer on the vielle." — Sterne. This phraseology ap- 
pears to me very objectionable ; and can be proper in no 
case, except when the date of the period is to be expressed 
as uncertain. The word some should be cancelled. We 
may say, u I was absent some days," because the period 
is indefinite ; but to say, " I was absent some five days," 
either involves an incongruity, representing a period as at 
once definite and indefinite ; or denotes " some five days 
or other," a meaning which the expression is rarely in- 
tended to signify. 

" Brutus and Aruns killed one another." It should 
be, "each other :" "one another" is applied to more than 
two. " The one the other" would be correct, though in- 
elegant. 

" It argued the most extreme vanity." — Hume. Ex- 
treme is derived from a Latin superlative, and denotes 
" the farthest," or " greatest possible :" it cannot, there- 
fore, be compared. 

" Of all vices pride is the most universal." Universal 
is here improperly used for general. The meaning of the 
latter admits intension and remission, and may, therefore, 
be compared. The former is an adjective, whose signi- 
fication cannot be heightened or lessened ; it therefore re- 
jects all intensive and diminutive words, as, so, more, less, 
least, most. The expression should be, " Of all vices 
pride is the most general." 

" Tho' learn'd, well-bred ; and tho* well-bred, sincere : 
Modestly bold, and humanly severe."— Pope. 

Human and humane, as Dr. Campbell observes, are some- 
times confounded. The former properly means " belong- 
ing to man ;" the latter, " kind and compassionate :" hu- 
manly, therefore, is improperly, in the couplet now quoted, 
used for humanely. 



282 CRITICAL REMARKS 

SECTION III. 

THE PRONOUN. 

BARBARISM. 

Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that 
this species of error, in respect to them, can scarcely oc- 
cur. To this class, however, may perhaps be reduced 
such as, Min, her'n, our'n, your'n, their^n, for his own, her 
own, our own, &c. or for his one, her one, &c. 

SOLECISM. 

" Who calls ?" " 'Tis me." This is a violation of that 
rule, by which the verb to be has the same case after it, 
that it has before it. It should be, " It is I." 

" You were the quarrel," says Petulant in " The Way 
of the World." Millamant answers, " Me !" For the 
reason just given, it should be " /." 

" Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults." 
As the relative refers to persons, it should be who, 

" Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus 
determining him." — Swift. Mankind is a collective noun, 
and is uniformly considered as plural ; his, therefore, is a 
gross solecism. 

66 By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain 
portion of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself 
every species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons." — 
Gibbon. It ought to be, to which — the pronoun itself, 
which follows, referring to a noun of the neuter gender. 
To whom and itself cannot each agree with one common 
antecedent. 

" The seeming importance given to every part of fe- 
male dress, each of which is committed to the care of a 
different sylph." — Essay on the Writings of Pope. This 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. £83 

sentence is ungrammatical. Each implying " one of two," 
or " every one singly of more than two,' 1 requires the cor- 
relative to be considered as plural; yet the antecedent 
part, to which it refers, is singular. It should be " all 
parts of female dress." 

" To be sold the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business. ,, 
This is an ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. 
The verb left off, as Baker observes, has no subject, to 
which it can grammatically belong. It should be, u who 
has left off," or " leaving off business." " A. B. lieu- 
tenant, vice C. D. resigned.'" Here is a similar error. 
Is C. D. resigned ? or is it the office which has been re- 
signed ? An excessive love of brevity gives occasion to 
such solecisms. 

" He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testi- 
mony, which he is compelled to give." — Gibbon's Decline 
of the Roman Empire. 

" The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was 
only fifteen years of age, declined a perilous encounter."— 
lb. 

In the former sentence, the historian appears neither as 
the nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be in- 
tended to agree with he by apposition, it should have im- 
mediately followed the pronoun. If it be designed em- 
phatically, and ironically, to mark the character of the 
historian, it should have been thrown into the form of a 
parenthetic exclamation. In the latter sentence a phrase- 
ology occurs, which, notwithstanding its frequency in 
Gibbon, is extremely awkward and inelegant. The fault 
may be corrected either by throwing the age of the prince 
into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the substitution of 
who for he. 

" Fare thee well" is a phraseology which, though sanc- 
tioned by the authority of a celebrated poet, and also by 
other writers, involves a solecism. The verb is intransi- 
tive, and its imperative is fare thou. No one would say, 
" I fare me well," " we fare us well." 



284 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" That faction in England, who most powerfully op- 
posed his arbitrary pretensions." — Macaulay. It ought 
rather to be, " that faction in England, which." It is 
justly observed by Priestley, " that a term, which only 
implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some 
circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of 
who." 

" He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysi- 
cians, one of the deepest philosophers, and one of the best 
critics, and most learned divines, which modern times 
have produced." — Keith on the Life and Writings of 
Campbell. 

" Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on 
the face of the earth."— Geddes. 

" Lord Sidney was one of the wisest, and most active 
governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several years." — 
Hume. 

In the two first of these passages, which is improperly 
applied to persons ; in the last, the author has avoided 
this impropriety, and used whom. The pronoun that, 
however, is much preferable to who, or which, after a 
superlative. 

"Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned 
themselves as Christians." — Watson's Life of Philip III. 
Such is here improperly followed by who instead of as. 
The correlative terms are those, who, and such as. 

66 It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could 
ever be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine 
honours paid to them, while numerous persons were alive, 
who knew their imperfections, and who themselves, or 
their immediate ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, 
and come in competition with them." — Prideaux's Connex- 
ions. The identity of subject, in the relative clauses of 
this sentence, requires the repetition of the same pronoun. 
It should be, " who themselves, or whose immediate 
ancestors." 

" If you were here, you would find three or four in the 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 285 

parlour, after dinner, whom, you would say, past their 
afternoons very agreeably." — Swift. The pronoun ivhom 
should not be under the government of the verb would 
say, having no connexion with it ; but should be a nomi- 
native to the verb passed ; thus, " who, you would say, 
passed their afternoons." 

" By these means, that religious princess became ac- 
quainted with Athenais, whom she found was the most 
accomplished woman of her age." Whom, for the reason 
already assigned, should be who, being the nominative to 
the verb was. If it were intended to be a regimen to the 
verb found, the sentence should proceed thus, " whom she 
found to be." 

" Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who 
was much greater and wiser than Solomon." In English 
the absolute case is the nominative ; it should, therefore, 
be, " he only excepted." 

" Who, instead of being useful members of society, 
they are pests to mankind." Here the verb are has two 
nominatives, who and they, each representing the same 
subjects of discourse. One of them is redundant ; and by 
the use of both, the expression becomes solecistical, there 
being no verb to which the relative who can be a nomi- 
native. 

" My banks, they are furnish'd with bees," 

is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the 
poetic licence may be pleaded in excuse. 

** It is against the laws of the realm, which, as they are 
preserved and maintained by your majesty's authority, so 
we assure ourselves, you will not suffer them to be vio- 
lated." Which is neither a regimen nor a nominative to 
any verb ; the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical — 
Them is redundant. 

" Whom do men say that I am ?" The relative is 
here in the objective case, though there be no word in the 
sentence by which it can be governed. In such inverted 



286 CRITICAL REMARKS 

sentences, it is a good rule for those, who are not well ac- 
quainted with the language, to arrange the words in the 
natural order, beginning with the nominative and the 
verb, thus, " men say, that I am who," a sentence pre- 
cisely analogous to " men say, that I am he," the verb 
requiring the same case after it, as before it. Hence it is 
obvious, that it should be, " Who do men say that I 
am?" 

" Who do you speak to ?" It ought to be whom, the 
relative being under the government of the preposition, 
thus, u To whom do you speak ?" 

" Who she knew to be dead." — Henrys Hist, of Bri- 
tain. Here also the relative should be in the objective 
case, under the government of the verb, thus, " whom she 
knew," or " she knew whom to be dead." 

" Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat." — Milton. 

" The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud, 
With deeper sable blots the silver flood." — Pope. 

This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to 
Mr. Baker's reasons for condemning the phrase " than 
whom," Story's observations betray, as I conceive, ex- 
treme ignorance, and require correction. " The Eng- 
lish," says he, " is strictly good ; for the relative whom 
is not in the same case with sluice, (which is the nomina- 
tive to the verb blots,) but referring to its antecedent, the 
king of dykes, is very properly in the objective case, even 
though the personal pronoun he, if substituted in its 
place, would be in the nominative." 

If Mr. Story conceives, that the relative must agree 
with its antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious 
mistake. Every page of English evinces the contrary. 
Yet, such must be his opinion, or his argument means 
nothing ; for the only reason, which he offers for whom, is, 
that its antecedent is in the objective case. Besides, if 
than whom be admissible, nay proper, he will have diffi- 
culty in assigning a good reason, why it should not be also 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 287 

than him. But Mr. Story should have known, that, when 
two nouns are coupled by a conjunction, the latter term is 
not governed by the conjunction, but is either the nomi- 
native to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the pre- 
position understood. The sentence proceeds thus, " no 
sluice of mud blots with deeper sable, than he or who 
blots." 

" It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the 
court of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for 
prudence and economy ." — Hume. The word Elizabeth, 
as represented in the latter clause, is here a mere word, 
nuda vox, and not the sign of a person ; for it is said to 
be another name for prudence and economy. Not the per- 
son, but the word, is said to be significant of this quality. 
The pronoun, therefore, should be which, not who. The 
sentence, however, even thus corrected, would be inele- 
gant. Better thus, " Queen Elizabeth, whose name was 
but another word for prudence and economy." 

" Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections 
the silly world may make upon you." Consistency re- 
quires either "your duty," or "upon thee." Thy and 
your, a singular and a plural pronoun, each addressed to 
the same individual, are incongruous. 

A similar error occurs in the following passage : " I 
pray you, tarry all night, lodge here, that thy heart may 
be merry."— Bible. 

" It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, 
for these only devour the dead, those the living." The 
pronoun this always refers to the nearer object, that to the 
more remote. This distinction is here reversed. " It 
should be, " those (crows) devour the dead ; these (flat- 
terers) the living." I observe also, in passing, that those 
adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, are not 
compared by more and most. It ought to be, "it is 
better." 

" It is surprising, that this people, so happy in inven- 
tion, have never penetrated beyond the elements of geome- 



288 CRITICAL REMARKS 

try." It should be has, this people being in the singular 
number. We may say, " people have," the noun being 
collective, but not " this people have." 

" I and you love reading." This is a Latinism, and not 
accordant with our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was 
right, when he said " Ego, et rex meus ;" but in English 
we reverse the order. It should be, " you and I." We 
say also, " he and I," " they and I." You always pre- 
cedes. 

" Each of the sexes should keep within its proper 
bounds, and content themselves with the advantages of 
their particular districts." — Addison. Here the pronoun 
does not agree with the word to which it refers, the word 
each being singular; whereas themselves and their are 
plural. It should be, itself and its. 

A similar error occurs in the following sentence : " Some 
of our principal public schools have each a grammar of 
their own." — Barrow on Education. It ought to be, " each 
a grammar of its own." The expression is elliptical, for 
" schools have each (has) a grammar of its own." Thus 
we say, " Simeon and Levi took each man his sword,'''' not 
their swords. — Gen. xxxiv. 25. 

" Let each esteem other better than themselves." — Bible. 
For the reason just given, it ought to be himself. 

" So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, 
if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother 
their trespasses." — Bible. Here is a manifest solecism, 
the pronoun their referring to " his brother," a singular 
subject. 

" I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle 
away your time in making war upon women." — Essay on 
the Writings of Pope. Here the pronoun disagrees in 
person with the noun, to which it refers, hero being of the 
third person, and your of the second. The connexion is, 
" I wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle away his 
time." 

" The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 289 

present from my friend, 1 ' &c. Which is here in the objec- 
tive case, and cannot properly be understood as the nomi- 
native to the verb was : better, therefore, " and which was 
a present." The following sentence is still more faulty : 
" It was happy for them, that the storm, in which they 
were, and was so very severe, lasted but a short time.' 1 
This is ungrammatical, the verb " was" having no nomi- 
native. It should be, " which was." 

" There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a 
body of regular troops in their pay." This expression, to 
say the least of it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, u its 
pay. 1 ' "Is any nation sensible of the lowness of their 
own manners ?" — Karnes. Nation is here improperly con- 
strued as both singular and plural. It should be rather 
" its own." 

u The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a 
temporary submission, and of which he took no care to 
secure the continuance of it." — Dryden. The redundancy 
of the words of it, renders the sentence somewhat ungram- 
matical. It should run thus, " The treaty he concluded 
can only be considered as a temporary submission, of which 
he took no care to secure the continuance." 

An improper reference occurs in the following sentence : 
" Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable to be de- 
ceived." One here answers to the indefinite word on in 
French, and cannot be represented by any pronoun. It 
must, therefore, be repeated, thus, " Unless one be very 
cautious, one will be liable to be deceived." 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" Give me them books." Here the substantive pronoun 
is used adjectively, instead of the demonstrative those or 
these. The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly 
speaking, the only pronouns, cannot be construed as ad- 
jectives agreeing with substantives. We cannot say, " it 
book," " they books," " them books ;" but " this" or " that 
book," " these" or " those books." The former phraseo- 
logy may be deemed solecistical. 



290 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" Great numbers were killed on either side." — Watsoris 
Philip III. " The Nile flows down the country above 
five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer, and marks 
on either side the extent of fertility by the measure of its 
inundation." — Gibbon. 

It has been already observed, that the Saxon word agther 
signifies each, as Gen. vii. 2. " Clean animals thou shalt 
take by sevens of each kind, ,, agthres gecyndes. The Eng- 
lish word either is sometimes used in the same sense. But 
as this is the only word in our language, by which we can 
express " one of two," " which of the two you please," 
and as it is generally employed in that sense, perspicuity 
requires, that it be strictly confined to this signification. 
For, if either be used equivocally, it must, in many cases, 
be utterly impossible for human ingenuity to ascertain, 
whether only " one of two," or " both" be intended. In 
such expressions, for example, as " take either side," " the 
general ordered his troops to march on either bank," how 
is the reader or hearer to divine, whether both sides, both 
banks, or only one be signified ? By employing each to 
express " both," taken individually, and either to denote 
64 one of the two," all ambiguity is removed. 

" The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this 
morning, as well as your humble servant, in my return 
from Chapel Izzard." — Addison to Swift. After the wri- 
ter has spoken of himself in the third person, there is an 
impropriety in employing the pronoun of the first. Much 
better " in his return." 

" The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly 
different." — Warburton. From this sentence it would 
seem, that there is only one subject of discourse, the ends 
belonging to one individual, a divine and human legislator. 
The author intended to express two different subjects, 
namely, " the objects of a divine," and " the objects of a 
human legislator." The demonstrative those is omitted. 
It should be, " the ends of a divine, and those of a human 
legislator, are vastly different." This error consists in de- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 291 

feet, or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun : in the follow- 
ing sentence the error is redundancy. " They both met 
on a trial of skill." Both means " they two," as ambo in 
Latin is equivalent to " ol duo." It should therefore be, 
" both met on a trial of skill." 

u These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength." 
This, says Baker, is nonsense ; for these words signify 
only, that A is equal in strength, and B equal in strength, 
without implying to whom ; so that the word equal has 
nothing to which it refers. " A and B," says he, " are equal 
in strength," is sense ; this means, that they are equal to each 
other. tc A and B are both equal in strength to C," is 
likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, and that 
B likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it 
appears to me, that, when he admits the expression, " are 
both equal," as significant of the equality of each, he 
admits a phraseology, which does not strictly convey that 
idea. For if we say, " A and B are both equal," it seems 
to me to imply, that the two individuals are possessed of 
two attributes or qualities, one of which is here expressed ; 
and in this sense only, as I conceive, is this phraseology 
correct. Thus we may say, with strict propriety, " A and 
B are both equal in strength, and superior in judgment, to 
their contemporaries." Or it may denote, that " they two 
together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly." In 
the former case, both is necessarily followed by and, which 
is in Latin rendered by et. Thus, " A and B are the two 
things, (both) equal in strength, and (add) superior in 
judgment to their contemporaries." In the latter case, it 
is equivalent to ambo, expressing two collectively, as, 
" they two together are equal to C, but not separately" 
I am aware, that the word both in English, like ambo in 
Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either " the two 
collectively," or " the two separately," and that many 
examples of the latter usage may be adduced. But that 
surely cannot be deemed a correct or appropriate term, 
which, in its strict signification, conveys an idea, different 

u 2 



292 CRITICAL REMARKS 

from that intended by the speaker ; or which leaves the 
sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The 
word each, substituted for both, renders the expression 
clear and precise, thus, " A and B are each equal to C in 
strength." * 

An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sen- 
tence : " This proves, that the date of each letter must have 
been nearly coincident." Coincident with what ? Not 
surely with itself ; nor can the date of each letter be coin- 
cident with each other. It should be, " that the dates of 
both letters must have been nearly coincident with each 
other." 

" It's great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal." 
Better, 'TVs, in order to distinguish the contraction from 
the genitive singular of the pronoun it. 

" Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mild may, will 
ever believe, but what I have been entirely to blame.*" 
The pronoun what, equivalent to that which, is here im- 
properly used for that. This mode of expression still 
obtains among the lower orders of the people, and is not 
confined to them in the northern parts of the island. It 
should be, " that I have been." The converse of this error 
occurs in the following passages : 

" That all our doings may be ordered by thy govern- 
ance, to do always that is righteous in thy sight." — Book 
of Common Prayer. 

" For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, 
according to that a man hath." — Bible. 

The pronouns it and that were formerly used as in- 
cluding the relative. " This submission is it implieth 
them all." " This is it men mean by distributive justice." 
— Hobbes. " To consider advisedly of that is moved." — 
Bacon. This usage is now obsolete. The clauses should 

* " Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hie et ille fecerit divisim ; ambos 
fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint."— Stephan. This 
distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly 
observed* 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 293 

therefore proceed thus, " to do always what," or " that, 
which is righteous.'" " According to what," or " that, 
which a man hath." 



SECTION IV. 

THE VERB. 

BARBARISM. 



" Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show 
of their king's affection, and many sugared words, seek 
to adduhe all matters between the two kings." — Bacon. 
The verb " to adduce 1 ' is obsolete. 

" Do villany, do ; since you profess to 
Like workmen, I '11 example you with thievery." 

Shakspeare. 

The verb " to example," as equivalent to the phrase 
" to set an example," is obsolete ; and when used for " to 
exemplify," may be deemed obsolescent. " The proof 
whereof," says Spencer, in his State of Ireland , " I saw 
sufficiently exampled ;" better " exemplified." 

" I called at noon at Mrs. Masham's, who desired me 
not to let the prophecy be published, for fear of angering 
the queen." — Swift. The verb " to anger" is almost ob- 
solete. In Scotland, and in the northern part of Eng- 
land, it is still colloquially used; but in written language, 
of respectable authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met 
with it once or twice in Swift and Pope ; since their time 
it appears to have been gradually falling into disuse. 

" Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, 
or shall we surcease ?" — Geddess Transl. The verb " to 
surcease" is obsolete. 

" And they and he, upon this incorporation and insti- 
tution, and onyng of themself into a realme, ordaynyd," 



294* CRITICAL REMARKS 

&c. — Fortescue. Here we have the participle of the verb 
" to one," now obsolete, for " to unite." 

" For it is no power to may alien, and put awaye ; but 
it is a power to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is 
no power to may syne, and to do ill, or to may be syke, 
or wex old, or that a man may hurt himself; for all thees 
powers comyne of impotencye." — lb. It has been already 
observed, that the verb may is derived from the Saxon 
maegan, posse. — See p. 104. From the passage before us 
it appears, that in the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the 
infinitive " to may," for " to be able," was in use. It has 
now been long obsolete. In the following passage, it forms 
what is called a compound tense with the word shall, the 
sign of the infinitive being suppressed. " Wherthorough 
the parlements schall may do more good in a moneth." — 
lb. That is, " shall be able to do." 

" Wherefor al, that he dothe owith to be referryed to 
his kingdom." — lb. The verb to owe, as expressive of 
duty, is now obsolete. It has been supplanted by ought, 
formerly its preterite tense, and now used as a present. 
We should now say, " ought to be referred." 

" Both these articles were unquestionably true, and 
could easily have been proven."— Henrys History of Bri- 
tain. " Admitting the charges against the delinquents 
to be fully proven." — Belsharns History. Proven is now 
obsolete, having given place to the regular participle. It 
is still, however, used in Scotland, and is therefore deemed 
a Scotticism. 

" Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had 
been the morning before." Methoughts is barbarous, and 
also violates analogy, the third person being thought, and 
not thoughts. 

SOLECISM. 

" You was busy, when I called." Here a pronoun 
plural is joined with a verb in the singular number. It 
should be, " you were." 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. #95 

" The keeping good company, even the best, is but a 
less shameful art of losing time. What we here call 
science and study are little better. ,, What is equivalent 
to that which. It should be is, and not are; thus, " that, 
which we call ... is little better." 

" Three times three is nine," and " three times three 
are nine,' 1 are modes of expression in common use ; and 
it has become a question, which is the more correct. The 
Romans admitted both phraseologies. " Quinquies et 
vicies duceni quadrageni singuli fiunt sex millia et viginti 
quinque." — Colum. Here the distributive numerals are 
the nominatives to the verb. " Ubi est septies millies 
sestertium. "~—Cic. Here the adverbial numerals make 
the nominative, and the verb is singular. Plurality being 
evidently implied, the plural verb seems more consonant 
with our natural conception of numbers, as well as with 
the idiom of our language. 

" This is one of those highwaymen, that was con- 
demned last sessions." According to the grammatical 
construction of this sentence, " one of those highwaymen" 
is the predicate ; for the syntactical arrangement is, " This 
(highwayman), that was condemned last sessions, is one of 
those highwaymen." But this is not the meaning, which 
this sentence is in general intended to convey : for it is 
usually employed to denote, that several highwaymen were 
condemned, and that this is one of them. The sentence, 
therefore, thus understood, is ungrammatical ; for the 
antecedent is, in this case, not one, but highwaymen. The 
relative, therefore, being plural, should be joined with a 
plural verb, thus, " This is one of those highwaymen, 
that were condemned last sessions. -1 '' 

" I had went to Lisbon, before you knew, that I had 
arrived in England." This is an egregious solecism, the 
auxiliary verb had, which requires the perfect participle, 
being here joined with the preterite tense. It should be, 
" I had gone." 

" He would not fall the trees this season." The verb 



296 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" to fall" is intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed 
by an objective case, denoting a thing acted upon. It 
should be, " he would not fell. 1 ' 

" Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and 
that by all means he sells the horses." — Sivift. Here we 
have in the latter clause a thing expressed as done or 
doing, for a thing commanded. It should be, " that he 
should sell ;" or elliptically, " that he sell." 

" It is very probable, that neither of these are the 
meaning of the text." Neither, means " not the one, nor 
the other," denoting the exclusion of each of two things. 
It should, therefore, be, " neither is the meaning of the 
text." 

" He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had 
the art to conceal them from the eyes of the public." 
According to the grammatical construction of this sen- 
tence, vices understood is the nominative to the verb had ; 
thus, " whose vices were very great, and whose vices had 
the art to conceal them." It should be, " and who had 
the art to conceal them." 

" At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number 
of houses, that amounted to a considerable city." Here 
the verb amounted has no nominative. To render the 
sentence grammatical, it should be, " that they amount- 
ed," or " as amounted to a considerable city." 

" It requires more logic, than you possess, to make a 
man to believe, that prodigality is not a vice." After the 
verb " to make," the sign of the infinitive should be 
omitted. See Rule xv. note 3. 

" He dare not," " he need not," may be justly pro- 
nounced solecisms, for " he dares," " he needs." 

" How do your pulse beat ?" Pulse is a noun sin- 
gular, and is here ungrammatically joined with a verb 
plural. It should be, " how does your pulse beat ?" 

" The river had overflown its banks." Overflown is 
the participle of the verb to fly, compounded with over. 
It should be " overflowed," the participle of " overflow." 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 297 

" They that sin rebuke before all." The pronoun, 
which should be the regimen of the verb rebuke, is here 
put in the nominative case. It should, therefore, be 
them. The natural order is, " rebuke them, that sin." 

" There are principles innate in man, which ever have, 
and ever will incline him to this offence." If the ellipsis 
be supplied, the sentence will be found to be ungramma- 
tical ; thus, " which ever have incline," and w ever will 
incline." It should be, " which ever have inclined, and 
ever will incline." 

" Nor is it easy to conceive that, in substituting the 
manners of Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by 
vanity." — Gibbon. " Substitute /o," is a Latinism. It 
should be, " substitute/or." 

" I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the 
frequent disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order." 
— Swift 's Letters. " You had better return home with- 
out delay." In both these examples would is far pre- 
ferable, thus, " I would rather live," " you would better 
return," or " you would do better to return." 

" That he had much rather be no king at all, than have 
heretics for his subjects." — Watson's Philip III. Here is 
involved the same error. It should be, " he would." 

" The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, 
four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the 
nobles of the Lancastrian party having been either killed 
in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts." 
— Henry's History. This sentence is ungrammatical. 
The word nobles joined to the participle having must be 
regarded as put absolutely, and therefore to the verb had 
there is strictly no nominative. But, even were a nomi- 
native introduced, the structure of the sentence would be 
still highly objectionable, the two last clauses " having 
been killed," and " they had fled," being utterly discord- 
ant one with the other. The primary idea to be ex- 
pressed is the fewness of the nobility; this forms the sub- 
ject of the principal clause. There are two reasons to be 



298 CRITICAL REMARKS 

assigned for this fewness, their destruction and their flight; 
these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. 
Between these two, therefore, there should be the strictest 
congruity ; and in this respect the sentence is faulty. It 
ought to proceed either thus, " The nobility of England 
consisted only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and 
twenty-nine barons ; for all the nobles of the Lancastrian 
party had either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or 
had fled into foreign parts ;" or thus, " all the nobles 
having been killed, or having fled." The latter is the pre- 
ferable form. 

" He neglected to profit of this occurrence." This 
phraseology occurs frequently in Hume. " To profit of," 
is a Gallicism ; it ought to be, " to profit by this occur- 
rence." 

" The people of England may congratulate to them- 
selves, that the nature of our government, and the cle- 
mency of our king, secure us." — Dryden. " Congratulate 
to," is a Latinism. The person congratulated should be 
in the objective case governed by the verb ; the subject is 
preceded by the preposition on, as, " I congratulate you 
on your arrival." 

" You will arrive to London before the coach." 

" A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of 
Ireland."— Swift's Sacr. Test. 

In these examples the verb " to arrive," is followed by 
to, instead of at, an error which should be carefully 
avoided. Good writers never construe it with the prepo- 
sition significant of motion or progression concluded, but 
with those prepositions which denote propinquity or in- 
clusion, namely, at or in. Hence also to join this verb 
with adverbs, expressive of motion to, or towards a place, 
is improper. We should say, " he arrived here, there, 
where — not hither, thither, whither" 

" Elizabeth was not unconcerned ; she remonstrated 
to James." — Andrews's Continuation of Henrys History. 
This is incorrect. We remonstrate with and not to a 
person, and against a thing. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 299 

" I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth 
forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad 
by myself." According to the structure of the second and 
third clauses of this sentence, the Lord is the antecedent to 
that, which is, therefore, properly joined with the third 
person of the verbs following, " maketh, 1 ' " spreadeth ;" 
but the pronoun of the first person, myself, in the last 
clause, does not accord with this structure ; for as we can- 
not say, " he spreadeth the earth by myself," there being 
only one agent implied, and where he and myself are sup- 
posed to allude to one person, so we cannot say, " that 
(Lord) spreadeth the earth by myself," but " by himself," 
an identity of person being indispensably requisite. The 
sentence, therefore, should conclude thus, " that spreadeth 
abroad the earth by himself." If myself be retained, the 
pronoun J must be considered as the antecedent, and the 
sentence will then run thus: "I am the Lord, that make 
all things, that stretch forth the heavens alone, that spread 
abroad the earth by myself" 

" Thou great first cause, least understood, 
Who all my sense confin'd, 
To know but this, that thou art good, 
And that myself am blind." — Pope. 

The antecedent to the pronoun who is the pronoun of 
the second person singular. The relative, therefore, being 
of the same person, should be joined to the second person 
singular of the verb, namely, " confinedst." 

M The executive directory, to prove that they will not 
reject any means of reconciliation, declares," &c. — Bel- 
sham's Hist. The nominative is here joined to a verb 
singular, and at the same time represented by a pronoun 
plural. The error may be corrected either by the sub- 
stitution of it for they, or declare instead of declares. 

" These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they 
might sometimes produce good effects, in particular cases, 
when properly timed, yet could they do but little towards 
eradicating faults." — Sheridan. The nominative admonu 



300 CRITICAL REMARKS 

tions is connected with no verb, the pronoun they being 
the nominative to the verb could. The sentence, there- 
fore, is ungrammatical ; nor can the figure hyperbaton be 
here pleaded in excuse, as the simplicity and shortness of 
the sentence render it unnecessary. They in the third 
clause should be suppressed. 

" This dedication may serve for almost any book, that 
has, is, or shall be published." — Bolingbroke. Has being 
merely a part of a compound tense, conveys no precise 
meaning without the rest of the tense. When joined, 
then, to the participle, here belonging to the three auxili- 
aries, the sentence proceeds thus, " This dedication may 
serve for almost any book, that has published.'' It ought 
to be " has been," " is," or " shall be published." The 
following sentence is chargeable with an error of the same 
kind. 

" This part of knowledge has been always growing, and 
will do so, till the subject be exhausted." Do what? The 
auxiliary cannot refer to been, for the substantive verb, or 
verb of existence, does not imply action, nor can we say, 
" do growing." It ought to be, " has been growing, and 
will still be so." 

" All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, 
and this I shall do." — Warburton. Here is a similar 
incongruity. He should have said, " and this shall be 
done." 

Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow 
under this head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, 
than solecisms. 

" 'Twas twenty years and more, that I have known 
him," says Pope to Gay, speaking of Congreve's death. 
It ought to be, " It is twenty years and more," the period 
concluding with the present time, or the time then pre- 
sent. He might have said, " It is now twenty years," 
where the adverb now, being obviously admissible, points 
to present time, and necessarily excludes the preterite 
tense. Pope says, "Twas twenty years." When? not 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 301 

surely in some part of the past time, but at the time of 
writing. 

" It were well for the insurgents, and fortunate for the 
king, if the blood, that was now shed, had been thought 
a sufficient expiation for the offence." — Goldsmith. " It 
were,' 1 which is equivalent to " it would be," is evidently 
incongruous with the following tense, " had been thought. " 
It ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, " it would 
have been," or " it had been, well for the insurgents." 

" Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I 
should be for allowing this great model." — Addison. This 
form of expression cannot be pronounced entirely repug- 
nant to analogy, the preterite of the auxiliary " to have" 
being used in a similar sense. But the verb " to be" 
having a mood appropriate to the expression of condi- 
tionally, the author should have said, " Were man like 
his Creator." 

" If you please to employ your thoughts on that sub- 
ject, you would easily conceive the miserable condition 
many of us are in." — Steele. Here there is obviously an 
incongruity of tense. It should be either, " if you please 
to employ, you will conceive," or "if it pleased you to 
employ, you would, conceive." 

66 James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell 
upon her legs." — Adam's Hist, of England. Here, the 
latter clause, which is intended to predicate an attribute 
of the species, expresses simply a particular fact ; in other 
words, what is intended to be signified as equally true of 
all, is here limited to one of the kind. It should be, " al- 
ways falls upon her legs." 

" This is the last time I shall ever go to London." 
This mode of expression, though very common, is cer- 
tainly improper after the person is gone, and can be pro- 
per only before he sets out. The French speak correctly 
when they say, " la derniere fois que je vais," i. e. the last 
time of my going. We ought to say, " this is the last 
time I shall be in London." 



30£ CRITICAL REMARKS 

" He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle 
to Hiero, who immediately accepted it." Consistency re- 
quires, that the last verb be in the same tense with the 
preceding verbs. The actions are described as present; 
the language is graphical, and that which has been pro- 
perly enough denominated the u historical tense" should 
not be employed. It ought to be, " who immediately ac- 
cepts it." 

" I have lost this game, though I thought I should 
have won it." It ought to be, " though I thought I 
should win it." This is an error of the same kind, as, " I 
expected to have seen you," " I intended to have written." 
The preterite time is expressed by the tenses " expected," 
" intended ;" and, how far back soever that expectation 
or intention may be referred, the seeing or writing must 
be considered as contemporary, or as soon to follow ; but 
cannot, without absurdity, be considered as anterior. It 
should be, " I expected to see," " I intended to write." 
Priestley, in defending the other phraseology, appears to 
me to have greatly erred, the expression implying a mani- 
fest impossibility. The action, represented as the object 
of an expectation or intention, and therefore, in respect to 
these, necessarily future, cannot surely, without gross ab- 
surdity, be exhibited as past, or antecedent to these. In 
the following passage the error seems altogether inde- 
fensible. u The most uncultivated Asiatics discover that 
sensibility, which, from their situation on the globe, we 
should expect them to have felt." — Robertson's History of 
America. The author expresses himself, as if he referred 
to a past sensation, while the introductory verb shows, 
that he alludes to a general fact. The incongruity is 
obvious. He should have said, " expect them to feel." 

" Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound." — Pope. 

Much better, " Fierce as he moves." Congruity of tense 
is thus preserved ; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty 
in employing the present, — a beauty, of which the preterite 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 303 

is wholly incapable. The former imparts vivacity to the 
expression; it presents the action, with graphical effect, 
to the mind of the reader ; and thus, by rendering him 
a spectator of the scene, impresses the imagination, and 
rouses the feelings with greater energy. Compared to the 
latter, it is like the pencil of the artist to the pen of the 
historian. 

" Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that 
I should do unto thee ?" The blind man said unto him : 
" Lord, that I might receive my sight." It ought to be, 
" that I may receive my sight," i" will being understood ; 
thus, " I will, that I may receive my sight," where the 
present wish, and the attainment of it, are properly repre- 
sented as contemporary. 

" These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy 
might be full." Better, " that your joy may be full." 

" If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he 
would confess, that there was a God." Universal, or abs- 
tract truths, require the present tense; it should be, 
" that there is a God." 

" impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was 

nothing, as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was no- 
thing, as if all that was sweetest, and all that was highest 
in human nature, was an idle show." — Godwin's Life of 
Chaucer. This sentence errs at once against elegance and 
accuracy. The former offence may be partly corrected, by 
substituting the conditional for the indicative tense, in the 
hypothetical clauses. But the author's principal error 
consists in converting a general proposition into a parti- 
cular fact, by representing that as past, which is always 
present and immutable. The sentence should proceed 
thus : " Impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement were 
nothing, as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue were no- 
thing, as if all that is sweetest, and all that is highest in 
human nature, were an idle show." 

A similar error occurs in this passage : " He proceeded 
to demonstrate, that death was not an evil ;" and also in 



304 CRITICAL REMARKS 

this, " I have frequently been assured by great ministers, 
that politics were nothing, but common sense." 

" Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant com- 
panion, was it polished by good manners." As the latter 
clause is intended to be purely hypothetical, the verb 
should not be in the indicative mood. " Were it polished," 
is the proper expression. 

" He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although 
it were different from that of this island." — Swiff s Voyage 
to Laputa. From the phraseology here employed, the 
reader might naturally infer, that the language of the 
island, and that of Balnibarbi, were identical ; for a con- 
cessive term, as I have already said, when joined to what 
is called the conjunctive form of the verb, implies pure 
hypothesis, as contrary to fact ; or, in other words, implies 
a negation of the attribute expressed. The author's in- 
tention was to signify, that the languages were not the 
same. He should, therefore, have said, " although it ivas 
different." 

" The circumstances were as follows." Several gram- 
marians and critics have approved this phraseology ; I am 
inclined, however, to concur with those, who prefer " as 
follow." To justify the former mode of expression, the 
verb must be considered as impersonal. This, I own, ap- 
pears to me a very questionable solution of the difficulty ; 
for I am convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in 
English, but such as are uniformly preceded by it. We 
frequently, indeed, meet with sentences, where verbs occur 
without a nominative, and in the singular number. These 
are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs, to which the 
nominative it is understood. I apprehend, however, that, 
on strict inquiry, some one or other of the preceding 
words, which are now considered as conjunctions, adverbs, 
or particles, was originally the nominative ; and that it is 
only since the primitive and real character of these words 
has been obliterated and lost, that we have found it neces- 
sary to inquire for another nominative. Thus, if the word 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 305 

as be equivalent to it, that, or which,* then it is obvious, 
that, when we say, " the circumstances were as follows" 
there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, nor, 
therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of 
the verb, in order to explain the syntax, or construction 
of the phrase ; for the word as, equivalent to it, that, or 
which, is the true nominative. It is evident, then, that 
this solution of the difficulty must be rejected as false ; 
and that the argument in favour of " as follows,"' 1 resting 
on the supposed impersonality of the verb, and the sup- 
pression of the pronoun, is entirely unfounded. 

If as then be the nominative to the verb, and be syno- 
nymous with it, that, or which, it is of importance to de- 
termine, whether as be a singular, or a plural word ; or 
whether it be either the one, or the other. That it is con- 
strued as singular, there can be no doubt. We say, " his 
insensibility is such, as excites our detestation." That it 
is also joined to a verb plural is equally certain, thus, 
" his manners are such as are universally pleasing. 1 ' In the 
former example, such as is equivalent to that which, and 
in the latter to those which. If as, then, be either singular 
or plural, and synonymous with it, that, or which, I con- 
ceive that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, it must, 
like which, be considered as plural, and joined to a plural 
verb. Now, it is surely more consonant with analogy to 
say, " the circumstances were, which follow, 11 than it 
follows, or that follows. Besides, when the demonstrative 
such precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it is univer- 
sally admitted, that as must then be followed by a plural 
verb. If so, the construction of the word as cannot, I ap- 
prehend, be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of 
the correlative term. Let us now hear those who adopt 
the contrary opinion. 

* " The truth is, that as is also an article ; and however and whenever 
used in English, means the same as it, or that, or which. In the German, 
where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (as so also 
does,) it is written es." — Tooke's Diversions. 

X 



306 CRITICAL REMARKS 

Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks, " that 
there are instances in our language of verbs in the third 
person without a nominative case, as, ' he censures her, so 
far as regards.' " In answer to this it may be observed, 
that, if the word as is to be considered in no other light, 
than as a conjunctive particle, it is certainly true, that the 
verb regards has no nominative. But I am persuaded, no 
person who has examined the theory of Mr. Tooke, can en- 
tertain a doubt respecting the original and real character 
of this word. Nay, if we investigate the true and primi- 
tive import of the correspondent Latin terms ut and uti, 
we shall find, that these, which are termed adverbs, are, in 
fact, the pronouns 6-n, 6t, and that quod (anciently written 
quodde) is nothing else than koli otti, which, like our word 
that, is sometimes called a conjunction, and sometimes a 
pronoun. Why the original character and real import of 
the word as have been completely merged in the name 
of adverb, while the word that has been assigned the 
double character of pronoun and conjunction, it would 
be easy to show, if the discussion were essential to the 
question before us. But in answer to Baker's remark, it 
is sufficient to observe, that as means properly it, that, or 
which. 

Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. " When a 
verb,"' says he, " is used impersonally, it ought undoubt- 
edly to be in the singular number, whether the neuter 
pronoun be expressed, or understood." But a question 
naturally arises, whence has the author learned that the 
verb is impersonal ? There appears to me to be no more 
impersonality in the verb, when we say, " it is as follows," 
than when we say, " it is such, as follows," or " they are 
such, as follow." If as be admitted as the nominative 
in two of these examples, I can perceive no reason for 
rejecting it in the third. But here lies, as will presently 
appear, the author's great error. Unacquainted with 
the true meaning of the word as, he conceived it as in- 
capable of becoming a nominative to a verb, as ut or uti 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 307 

is deemed in Latin ; and he therefore immediately recurs 
to ellipsis. 

" For this reason" (that is, because the verb is imper- 
sonal), he proceeds to observe, " analogy as well as usage 
favour this mode of expression, The conditions of the 
agreement were as follows, and not as follow." 

How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am 
utterly at a loss to conceive. The general rule surely is, 
that to every verb there shall be a nominative, and that 
this nominative shall be expressed, unless its presence in 
some preceding clause shall render the repetition of it 
unnecessary. But how is it consonant with analogy, that 
no nominative shall appear ; or that the supposed nomi- 
native shall not be found in any part of the sentence ? 
This surely is repugnant to analogy. 

" A few late writers," he observes, " have inconsi- 
derately adopted this last form (as follow) through a mis- 
take of the construction." But, if the verb be not imper- 
sonal, the error is his, not theirs. I must observe like- 
wise, that from the manner in which the author expresses 
himself, one would naturally infer, that a few writers, 
either contemporary, or immediately preceding his own 
time, had inconsiderately introduced a solecism into our 
language. When he offered this observation, he surely 
was not aware that Steele and Addison, nearly seventy 
years before the publication of " The Philosophy of 
Rhetoric," used the plural form. " The most eminent 
of the kennel," says Steele, " are blood-hounds, which 
lead the van, and are as follow." — Tatler, No. 62. " The 
words were as follow." — Ibid. No. 104. " The words are 
asfolloiv." — Addison, Spectator, No. 513. 

" For the same reason," continues he, still presuming 
the verb to be impersonal, " we ought to say, / shall con- 
sider his censures so far only, as concerns my friend 's con- 
duct, not concern. It is manifest," he observes, " that the 
word conditions in the first case, and censures in the second, 
cannot serve as nominatives." This observation demon- 

x 2 



308 CRITICAL REMARKS 

strates that the author's argument is founded in his igno- 
rance of the real character of the word as. The most ex- 
traordinary part of his reasoning follows. " But," says 
he, " if we give either sentence another turn, and instead 
of as, say such as, the verb is no longer impersonal. The 
pronoun such is the nominative, whose number is deter- 
mined by its antecedent. Thus we must say, they were 
such as follow ; such of his censures only, as concern my 
friend.'"' This is truly an extraordinary assertion. The 
antecedent correlative term such can have no connexion 
whatever with the subsequent verb, but must agree with 
the principal subject of discourse. Not only does analogy 
require this, but the usage of every language with which 
I am acquainted. If we say, Per sever antia fuit tanta, 
quantus erat furor. Is est, quern dicimus. Talis est, qualem 
esse creditis. lilts erant conditiones, quce sequuntur, — the 
antecedent correlative terms tanta, is, talis, ilia, — have no 
connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause, 
erat, dicimus, creditis, sequuntur. The truth of this ob- 
servation must be sufficiently obvious to every classical 
scholar. 

But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned 
author's opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and 
say, " I will consider those censures only, which concern 
my friend." In this sentence it will not be questioned 
that those and censures are in the objective case, under the 
government of the verb. And can it be doubted, if we 
say, " I will consider such censures," that censures with 
its concordant adjective are in the same case ? It is im- 
possible, I conceive, to make this plainer; but we shall 
suppose, for the sake of illustration, if this should yet be 
deemed necessary, the example in question to be thus 
rendered in Latin, eas tantum reprehensiones perpendam, 
qu(E ad amicum meum atiinent. Now, what should we 
think of his classical attainments who should contend that 
eas or reprehensiones is the nominative to the verb ? If 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 309 

we revert then to the original terms, and say, " I will 
consider such of his censures as concern my friend," by 
what rule of grammar, by what principle of analysis, can 
we suppose such to be the nominative to the verb ? For 
let me ask, what is he to consider ? Is it not such cen- 
sures ? And are we, contrary to every principle of Eng- 
lish grammar, to represent the object or subject after an 
active verb, as in the nominative case ? The absurdity 
is too monstrous for a moment's consideration. The very 
argument, therefore, by which the author defends his 
doctrine is founded in error, and involves an absurdity. 
Murray, as usual, adopts the opinion of Campbell. 

If it should be inquired how as, an adverb or a con- 
junctive particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it 
may be answered, that to whatever order of words we re- 
duce this term, it was evidently at first what we denomi- 
nate a pronoun; and that it still so far retains its primitive 
character as to supply the place of a nominative. It is of 
little moment by what designation it be called, if its cha- 
racter and real import are well understood, any more than 
it can be of consequence whether we call that a conjunc- 
tion or a pronoun, provided we know, that it is truly and 
essentially the same word in the same meaning wherever 
it occurs. I would observe also, though my limits will 
not permit me to illustrate the principle, that those, who 
disapprove the verb singular in the examples in question, 
may notwithstanding admit it in such expressions as so 
far as, so long as, and all similar phraseologies. 

" To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have me- 
ditated Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and consulted the 
following moderns." — Gibbon. To meditate, when a re- 
gimen is assigned to it, as here, means to plot, to contrive, 
as, " he meditated designs against the state." When it 
signifies to ponder, or to reflect seriously, it should be fol- 
lowed by the preposition on, as, " he meditates on the law 
of God day and night." 



310 CRITICAL REMARKS 



IMPROPRIETY. 



" They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of 
the ambassador." — Anderson's Embassy to China. Here 
the verb to proceed, or go forward, is improperly used for 
to precede, or to go before. 

" He waved the subject of his greatness." — Dry den. 
" To wave" is properly " to move loosely ," and should 
be distinguished from " to waive," i. e. " to leave" or " to 
turn from. 1 " — See Skinners Etym. 

" It lays on the table ; it laid on the table." This 
error is very common, and should be carefully avoided. 
The verb to lay is an active verb ; to lie is a neuter verb. 
When the subject of discourse is active, the former is to 
be used ; when the subject is neither active nor passive, 
the latter ought to be employed. Thus, " he lays down 
the book," " he laid down the book," where the nomina- 
tive expresses an agent, or a person acting. " The book 
lies there," " the book lay there," where the nominative 
expresses something, neither active, nor passive. When 
we hear such expressions as these, " he lays in bed," 
" he laid in bed," a question naturally occurs, what does 
he lay ? what did he lay ? This question demonstrates the 
impropriety of the expressions. The error has originated, 
partly in an affected delicacy, rejecting the verb " to lie," 
as being synonymous with the verb " to tell a falsehood 
wilfully," and partly from the identity of the one verb in 
the present with the other in the preterite tense; thus, 
" lay? « laid," "laid;" " lie," " lay? " lain." 

" The child was overlain." The participle, for the 
reason now given, should be overlaid. 

" It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and 
not my cousin." This use of the preterite definite is, I 
believe, confined to Scotland, where, in colloquial lan- 
guage, it is very common. The Scots employ it in those 
cases, in which an Englishman uses either the preterite in- 
definite, or the verb signifying necessity. Thus, in the 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 311 

preceding instance, an Englishman would say, " it must 
have been my brother, you saw in the theatre." 

" Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss 
in understanding several passages in the classics." — Blair's 
Lectures. " In the Latin language, there are no two 
words we would more readily take to be synonymous, 
than amare and di/igere." — lb. This error occurs fre- 
quently in Blair. In the former example it should be 
shall, and in the latter should. (See p. 105). 

An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following 
passage. " There is not a girl in town, but let her have 
her will, in going to a mask, and she shall dress like a 
shepherdess." — Spectator, No. 9. It should be, she will. 
The author intended to signify mere futurity ; instead of 
which he has expressed a command. 

" He rose the price of bread last week." Here rose, 
the preterite of the neuter verb to rise, and, therefore, un- 
susceptible of a regimen, is ungrammatically joined with 
an objective case, instead of raised, the preterite of the 
active verb to raise. This error, therefore, involves a 
solecism, as well as an impropriety. 

" Does the price of bread raise this week ?" This error 
is the converse of the former, the active verb being here 
used instead of the neuter. The question, What does it 
raise ? shows the impropriety of the expression. It ought 
to be, " Does the price of bread rise this week?" These 
verbs, like the verb to lay and to lie, are very often con- 
founded in vulgar use. 

" It would be injurious to the character of Prince 
Maurice, to suppose, that he would demean himself so far, 
as to be concerned in those anonymous pamphlets." — 
Watson's Philip III. Here the verb to demean, which 
signifies " to behave," is used as equivalent to the verb to 
debase, or " to degrade." This impropriety is now, I be- 
lieve, almost entirely confined to Scotland ; it has, there- 
fore, been ranked in the number of Scotticisms. " I de- 
mean myself" is equivalent to " I behave myself;" and 



312 CRITICAL REMARKS 

in this sense the author last quoted has, in another pass- 
age, very properly used it. " Such of the Morescoes 
might remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned 
themselves as Christian s." — Ibid. 

" Considerable arrears being now resting to the sol- 
diers." — Ibid. " Resting," which is equivalent to " being 
quiet,' 1 or " remaining," is, in the sense in which it is here 
employed, a rank Scotticism : it should be, " due," or 
" owing." 

" The reason will be accounted for hereafter." — War- 
burton. Accounted for is here improperly used for assign- 
ed. "To account for a reason," is "to account for an 
account." 

" But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, 
this being a distinct jurisdiction, which differs it con- 
siderably from these instances." — Blackstone. The verb 
to differ is a neuter verb, and cannot admit a regimen. 
The author has improperly used it in an active sense, for 
" to make to differ." It should be, " by which it differs," 
or, " which makes it differ considerably from these in- 
stances." * 

* The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may 
be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of active and neuter 
verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be that, which denotes neither 
doing nor suffering. An active verb, as its name imports, denotes, that 
the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, 
gives every active verb the designation of neuter, unless followed by an ob- 
jective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be express- 
ed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as 
neuter. "'Tis sure, that Henry reads ; y "so I drank ; and she made 
the camels drink also ;" " if you plant where savages are ;'' " the priests 
teach for hire;" "nor feel him where he struck;" "they that sow in 
tears, shall reap in joy." These are a few out of numberless examples, 
which might be produced. Indeed, Johnson's idea seems to be, as has 
been just now observed, that the verb must be regarded as neuter, unless 
followed by an objective case. This is certainly a great inaccuracy, and 
tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not 
the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the 
subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now 
quoted, can it be questioned, when we say he struck, that he was active; 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 313 

" In order to have this project reduced to practice, 
there seems to want nothing more, than to put those in 
mind, 1 ' kc— -Swift. Here, "to want," that is, "to 
need, 1 ' " to require, 1 ' is improperly used for " to bewant- 
ing," " to be required," " to be wanted." It should be, 
" there seems to be nothing wanting." The verb to want 
was frequently employed by Pope and Swift in the sense 
in which we here find it. Johnson, likewise, in one or two 
passages, has adopted the same usage, thus, " there had 
never wanted writers to talk occasionally of Arcadia and 
Strephon." — Life of Phillips. But in this sense it may 
now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely obsolete. 

The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is 
an idiom in our language, respecting the use of active for 
passive verbs, which seems worthy of attention, and which 

or when we say, they that sow shall reap, will it be affirmed that they are 
not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely ac- 
knowledged in theory, and adopted in definition;, but also founded in the 
very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explain- 
ed, and very easily understood. It is admitted by every grammarian, 
that an active verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter 
verb signifies that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, 
of active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intransitive. The 
latter is that which denotes immanent action, or that which does not pass 
from the agent to any thing else, as, J walk, I run. Transitive verbs are 
such as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted 
upon, as, " Hector wounded him," " Cain slew his brother." But the 
subject to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed ; the 
verb, however, is not the less active. Whether we say, " the drummer 
beats his drum," or "the drummer beats every day," it surely will not be 
contended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the 
other. The reader then is requested to observe, that it is not necessary 
to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be ex- 
pressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action 
generally and absolutely, as, " he reads in the morning, and writes in the 
evening;" or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, 
as, " he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening •" 
or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, "the 
•drummer beats at night," namely, his drum. But in all these cases, the 
verb is equally active. 



314 CRITICAL REMARKS 

I do not recollect to have seen remarked by any of our 
grammarians. In the languages of antiquity, the dis- 
tinction between active and passive was strictly observed ; 
but in English the active is frequently employed for the 
passive voice. Of this remarkable idiom numberless ex- 
amples might be produced; but the few following will 
suffice. Thus we say, "the sentence reads ill," "the 
wine drinks harsh,'' " the grass cuts easily," " the apples 
eat hard," " the drum beats to arms," " the metal works 
well." In these examples, the subject clearly is acted 
upon ; the verb, therefore, must be considered as having 
a passive signification. It is almost unnecessary to ob- 
serve, that this phraseology should be avoided, whenever 
it is likely to create ambiguity. 

" Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me. v — Book of 
Common Prayer, Psal. xxv. The verb to learn formerly 
denoted, either " to teach," or " to acquire knowledge." 
In the former sense it is now obsolete. It should there- 
fore be, " lead me forth in thy truth, and teach me." 

" Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most 
gracious favour." — Book of Common Prayer. " He had 
prevented the hour, because we might have the whole day 
before us." — Bacon. The verb to prevent, as signifying 
" to go before," or " come before," is now obsolete. 

" There was no longer any doubt, that the king was 
determined to wreck his resentment on all concerned." — 
Watson's Philip II. 

i6 They not only wrecked their vengeance on the 
living, but on the ashes of dead heretics." — Henry 's 
Britain. 

Here the verb to wreck, or " to destroy, by dashing on 
rocks," is improperly used for " to wreak," or " to dis- 
charge." In the last example the adverbs not only are 
improperly placed. It should be, " they wreaked their 
vengeance not only,''' &c. 

" We outrun our present income, not doubting to dis- 
burse ourselves out of the profits of some future plan." — 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 315 

Addison. " To disburse," or " to expend money," is 
here improperly used for " to reimburse," or " to repay." 

" And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the 
apostles." — Bacon. 

" The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, as 
being conform to the nature of knowledge." — HuttorCs 
Investigation, vol. i. p. 643. Conform, here used for con- 
formable, is, in this sense, deemed a Scotticism. 



SECTION V. 

THE ADVERB. 

BARBARISM. 

" Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare be- 
tween princes, that so holiiy was observed, to the last 
of those two excellent men." — Sidney on Government. 
Holiiy is obsolete. 

" Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt." — 
Bacon. The adverb easily is not compared, — see p. 74. 
Easiliest is, therefore, a barbarism. 

" Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem 
should be a stranger to what had passed there, their ac- 
knowledgment to one they met accidently, that they be- 
lieved in this prophet," &c. — Guardian. Steele has here 
used accidently, for accidentally. The former is a bar- 
barism, and its derivation is repugnant to analogy. 

" Uneath may she endure the flinty street, 
To tread them with her tender feeling feet." 

Shakspeare. 

Uneath is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a 
barbarism. 

" In northern clime, a valorous knight 
Did whilom kill his bear in fight, 
And wound a fiddler."— Hudibras. 



316 CRITICAL REMARKS 

Whilom is now entirely disused. The adverbs whilere, 
erst, and perhaps also anon, may be ranked in the class of 
barbarisms. 

" And this attention gives ease to the person, because 
the clothes appear unstudily graceful." — Wollstonecraffs 
Original Stories. The word unstudily is barbarous, and 
its mode of derivation contrary to analogy. 



" Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and thine 
often infirmities."' 1 Often, an adverb, is here improperly 
used as an adjective, in accordance with the substantive 
" infirmities.' 1 It ought to be " thy frequent infirmities. 11 

" We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge 
most likely to take soonest and deepest root. 11 Here, as 
in the preceding example, the adverb " soonest 11 is used as 
an adjective; for the connexion is " soonest root, 11 and 
" deepest root." Now, we cannot say " soon root, 11 the 
former term being incapable of qualifying the latter ; nor 
can we, therefore, say " soonest root. 11 It ought to be 
" the earliest and the deepest root. 11 

" After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and 
prosperous issue. 11 Soon issue is another example of the 
same error. 

" His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the 
conduct of the then ministry. 11 Here then, the adverb 
equivalent to at that time, is solecistically employed as an 
adjective, agreeing with ministry. This error seems to 
gain ground ; it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, 
and carefully avoided. " The ministry of that time," 
would be correct. 

" He tells them, that the time should come, that the 
temple should be graced with the presence of the Messias. 11 
Here that is incorrectly used for when, i. e. " at which 
time the temple should be graced." 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 317 

"West India fleet arrived safely." Here safely is impro- 
perly used for safe. The adverb is equivalent to " in a 
safe manner ;"" and when it is said, " that the fleet arrived 
safely" it signifies that the manner of the arrival, rather 
than the fleet itself, was safe or free from accident. If I 
say, " he carried the parcel as safely as possible," it im- 
plies merely his great attention to the manner of carrying 
it ; but this does not infallibly exclude accident ; for I 
may add, " but he unluckily fell," or, " he was unfortu- 
nately thrown down, and the glass was broken." But if I 
say, " he carried it as safe as possible," or, " he carried it 
safe," it implies that it came safe, or escaped all accidents. 
We should, therefore, say " that the West India fleet ar- 
rived safe." In disapproving the expression, " he arrived 
safely" I concur with Baker; but the judicious reader 
will perceive, that my reason for reprehending it, does not 
entirely coincide with his. The author's words are these : 
" If a man says, that he arrived safely, or in a safe man- 
ner, he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some mis- 
chance in arriving. But what danger is thereto be appre- 
hended in the circumstance of arriving ? The danger is 
only during the journey, or voyage; in the arrival there 
is none at all. The proper way of speaking is, therefore, 
6 I arrived safe,' that is, ' having escaped all the dangers 
of the passage.' " 

" The poor woman carried them to the person to whom 
they were directed ; and when Lady Cathcart recovered 
her liberty, she received her diamonds safely." It should 
be, "she received her diamonds safe." 

Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, 
frequently arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mis- 
take ; I mean the improper use of the adjective for the 
adverb. — See Syntax^ Rule V. Note 16. Hence many, 
when they employ such phraseologies as I have here exem- 
plified, conceive that they express themselves with the 
strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poefs observation^ 
" In vitium ducit culpse fuga, si caret arte.' 7 



318 CRITICAL REMARKS 

In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, 
that many English verbs, while they affirm some action, 
passion, or state of the subject, frequently serve as a copula, 
connecting the subject with another predicate. This is one 
of those idioms, in the grammar of our language, which 
demand the particular attention of the classical scholar. 
For, though an acquaintance with the learned languages 
will not seduce him into an improper use of an adjective 
for the adverb, it may, as in the example now before us, 
betray him into the converse error. And I am inclined to 
think, that from a propensity almost irresistible in the 
classical scholar to assimilate our language with the Latin 
tongue, our lexicographers have designated many of our 
words as adverbs, which are strictly adjectives. When it 
is said, for example, " it goes hard," Johnson considers 
hard as an adverb. Yet when we say, " it goes contrary," 
he considers contrary as an adjective. There appears to 
me to be more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice 
than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I am 
persuaded, belong to one and the same species. Nay, I 
might venture to assert, that no person, who had studied 
the principles of the English language, and of that only, 
would pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other 
an adjective. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have 
the regular adverb hardly to express the manner. When 
we say, " he reasoned concerning the rule," " we argued 
respecting the fact," " he lives according to nature," is 
there not something extremely arbitrary and unphilosophi- 
cal, in calling concerning a preposition, according a pre- 
position, followed by to, but properly a participle, and 
respecting a participle ? Are not all the three participles ? 
Yet Johnson has classed them, as I have now mentioned. 
But the farther illustration of this subject would lead us 
into a field much too large for the limits of the present 
treatise. We must therefore revert to our primary obser- 
vation, in which we cautioned the reader against the im- 
proper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should be 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 319 

remembered that, when it is intended to predicate some- 
thing of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the 
adjective should be employed ; but, when it is intended to 
express merely some modification of the attribute of the 
verb, we should then use the adverb. The difference may 
be illustrated by the following examples. When Gustavus 
says to his troops, " your limbs tread vigorous and your 
breasts beat high," he predicates with the act of treading 
their physical strength ; but had he said, " your limbs 
tread vigorously ," it would merely modify their treading, 
and express an act, not a constitutional habit. The same 
distinction may be made between saying with Arnoldus in 
the same play, " the tear rolls graceful down his visage," 
and " the tear rolls gracefully." 1 The former predicates 
grace of the tear itself, the latter merely of its rolling. 
When we say, " he looks sly," we mean he has the look or 
the appearance of being a sly man ; when it is said, " he 
looks slyly ," we signify that he assumes a sly look. When 
we say " it tastes good," we affirm that the subject is of a 
good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or unpleasant; 
if we say " it tastes well," we affirm the taste of it to be 
pleasant. 

"The manner of it is thus." The adverb thus means 
" in this manner." The expression, therefore, amounts to 
" the manner of it is in this manner." It should be, " the 
manner of it is this," or " this is the manner of it." " This 
much is certain." Better, " Thus much," or " so much." 

" It is a long time since I have been devoted to your 
interest." Since properly means " from the time when," 
and not " during which time." The expression might be 
construed into a meaning the reverse of that which is 
intended, implying that the attachment had ceased for a 
long time. It should be " it is a long time since I became 
devoted," or " it is a long time, that I have been devoted 
to your interest." 

" It is equally the same." Equally is here redundant ; 
it ought to be, " it is the same." 



320 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you." 
Whenever means, " at what time soever," u always when," 
or " as often as ;" always, therefore, is redundant. 

" They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, 
charm he never so wisely." Never is here improperly 
used for ever. It ought to be, u charm he ever so 
wisely ;" that is, " however wisely" or " how wisely soever, 
he may charm." 

" And even in those characteristical portraits, on which 
he has lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom 
or ever misled." — Stewarfs Life of Robertson. This error 
is the converse of the former. It ought to be, " seldom or 
never ;" that is, " seldom, or at no time." " Seldom or 
ever" is equivalent to " seldom or always," or to u seldom 
or at any time ;' 1 expressions evidently improper. 

" Whether thou be my son, or not." — Bible. " Whe- 
ther you will keep his commandments, or no." Both these 
phraseologies are in use; but I am inclined to agree 
with those grammarians, who prefer the former, as more 
consistent with the ellipsis — ''Whether thou be, or be 
not." "Whether you will keep his commandments, or 
will not keep." 

" Some years after being released from prison, by reason 
of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and military 
affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme power." The 
first clause of this sentence is ambiguous ; for the sentence 
may imply, either that he gained the supremacy, some 
years after he was released from prison, that period being 
left indeterminate ; or that some years after a time pre- 
viously mentioned, he was released from prison, and at- 
tained the chief power. The latter being the author's 
meaning, it ought to be, " some years afterwards being 
released from prison." Another ambiguity is here involved 
by improper arrangement ; for, as the sentence stands, it 
is somewhat doubtful, whether his consummate knowledge 
was the cause of his releasement, or the cause of his eleva- 
tion. This error, however, belongs more to the rhetorician, 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 321 

than the grammarian. The French term this ambiguity, 
" construction louche," or a squinting construction. 

The following error consists in wrong collocation : " The 
Celtiberi in Spain borrowed that name from the Celtae 
and Iberi, from whom they were jointly descended." 
Jointly, with whom ? It should be, " from whom (the 
Celtae and Iberi) jointly they were descended.'" 

" And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only 
regular body of Deists in the universe, the literati, or the 
disciples of Confucius in China. 1, — Hume's Essays. The 
adverb nearly, which is synonymous with almost, is here 
improperly used for near.* It should be, approach near. 

" This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits 
of our age are said to borrow their weapons.'" — Swift. 
From is here redundant ; whence, denoting " from which 
place." 

" An ancient author prophesies from hence." — Dryden. 
Here a similar impropriety is involved. It should be 
hence. 

" E'er we can offer our complaints, 
Behold him present with his aid." 

.E'er, a contraction for ever, which is synonymous with 
always, and also at any time, is here improperly used for 
ere or before. 

In the two following passages, there appears to me to 
be a similar error : " Or ever the silver cord be loosed, 
or the golden bowl be broken." — Bible. " I was set up 
from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth 
was." — Ibid. 

" And, as there is now never a woman in England, I 
hope, I may talk of women without offence." — Steele. 

" He spake never a word." — Bible. 

This usage of the word " never," is now, I believe, en- 
tirely confined to the vulgar. 

* In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, 
that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach 
to Deism. 

Y 



3%2 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do 
not merely dispeople and destroy." — Bacon. Merely is 
here used, as it is uniformly by Bacon, and very fre- 
quently by Shakspeare, for entirely. In this sense it is 
obsolete ; and it now signifies purely, simply, only, nothing 
more than. From inattention to this, the passage, now 
quoted, has been corrupted in several editions. They 
have it, " do not merely dispeople, but destroy," convey- 
ing a sentiment very different from what the author in- 
tended. 



SECTION VI. 

THE PREPOSITION. 

SOLECISM. 

" Who do you speak to ?" Here the preposition is 
joined with the nominative, instead of the objective case. 
It should be, " whom do you speak to?" or " to whom 
do you speak ?" To who is a solecism. 

" He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days 
ago." It should be, " to you and me ;" that is, " to you, 
and to me." 



Now Margaret's curse is fallen upon our heads, 
When she exclaim'd on Hastings, you and I." 

Shakspeare. 






It ought to be, " on Hastings, you and me," the pro- 
nouns being under the government of the preposition un- 
derstood. 

" Neither do I think, that any thing could be more en- 
tertaining, than the story of it exactly told, with such ob- 
servations, and in such a spirit, style, and manner, as 
you alone are capable of performing it." This sentence 
is extremely faulty. " To perform a story" is not Eng- 
lish ; and the relative clause is ungrammatical, the pre- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 323 

position being omitted. It should be " performing it in," 
which would be grammatically correct, but inelegant, as 
well as improper. It would be better expressed thus, " in 
that spirit, style, and manner, in which you alone are ca- 
pable of narrating it." 

" Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the 
ancient English liberty." — Hume's Essays. The error 
here in the use of the preposition after notwithstanding, 
is, I believe, peculiar to Scotland. Notioithstanding is a 
compound word of the same import as not preventing. 
The grammatical construction therefore is, " the numer- 
ous panegyrics notwithstanding," that is, " not hinder- 
ing," the noun and the participle being in the absolute 
case. Of renders the expression solecistical. 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" If policy can prevail upon force." — Addison. Here 
upon is improperly used for over. To prevail on, is " to 
persuade ;" to prevail over, is " to overcome." 

" I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who 
have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these three years 
past." — Swift. It should be, u within these three years 
past." Swift's expression implies, as Baker observes, 
that these gentlemen had been robbed during the whole 
three years. 

" Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a 
camel." In this sentence, the preposition at is very im- 
properly used for out. It should be, " strain out a gnat ;" 
that is, exclude it from the liquor by straining. 

" Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain 
upon the streets of the city." — Scott. This form of ex- 
pression is almost universal in Scotland. An Englishman 
says, " in the streets." 

" I have several times inquired of you without any 
satisfaction." — Pope. We say " inquire of," when we 
ask a question; and " inquire for," or "after," when we 
desire to know the circumstances, in which any object 

y 2 



324 CRITICAL REMARKS 

is placed. He should have employed the latter expres- 
sion. 

" The greatest masters of critical learning differ among 
one another/"' — Spectator. If the ellipsis be supplied, the 
sentence proceeds thus : " The greatest masters of critical 
learning differ, one differs among another." Here the 
preposition among, which implies a number, or a plu- 
rality, is joined to a term significant of unity. It ought 
to be, ' ; from one another ;" that is, " one from another," 
or " differ among themselves." 

" I intended to wait of you this morning." The pre- 
position of is here improperly used for on. We say to 
wait on, not to wait of. 

" He knows nothing on it. This is a vile vulgarism 
for " he knows nothing of it." 

" He is now much altered to the better." To is here 
improperly used instead of for. " Altered to the better," 
may, I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. It ought to be, 
" he is altered for the better." 

Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the pre- 
position in an improper place. " A clergyman is, by the 
militia act, exempted from both serving and contribut- 
ing." This, though intended to express a different mean- 
ing, strictly implies, that he is not obliged both to serve 
and to contribute, but does not exclude his liability to do 
the one, or the other. If we say, " he is exempted both 
from serving and contributing," we express an exemption 
from both. 

" Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing." 
— Addison s Sped. " To have a taste of a thing," is 
" to feel how it affects the sensitive or perceptive fa- 
culty ;" " to have a taste for a thing," is " to relish its 
agreeable qualities;" " to have a taste in a thing," which 
is the expression used by Addison in the same paper, is 
" to have a discriminative judgment in examining the ob- 
ject." The first expression is incorrect, as not convey- 
ing his meaning. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 325 

Swift, speaking of Marlborough's dismission from the 
queen's ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, 
says, " If a stranger should hear these furious outcries 
of ingratitude against our general, he would be apt to in- 
quire, 11 &c. One would naturally conclude from the au- 
thor's expression, that Marlborough, and not the nation, 
was charged with ingratitude. He should have said, " in- 
gratitude towards our general. 11 

" I received the sword in a present from my brother. 11 
This is a very common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs 
occasionally in written language. The sword was not re- 
ceived in, but as a present. 

In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly 
made between their literal and figurative meaning. " Wit," 
says Shakspeare, " depends on dilatory time." Here the 
verb is employed figuratively, and the idea involved in 
the primitive meaning is dismissed. 

" From gilded roofs depending lamps display." — Dryden. 

Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting 
" to hang, 11 and is followed, therefore, by from. 

To the same purpose it has been remarked by Camp- 
bell, that the verb " to found, 11 used literally, is followed 
by on preferably to in; as, " the house was founded on 
a rock f but, when employed metaphorically, is better 
followed by in, as, " dominion is founded in grace." 

" There is no need for your assistance." It should be, 
" °f y our assistance. 11 We say, " occasion for,'''' and 
" need of" Need for may likewise be pronounced a 
Scotticism, as, I believe, this phraseology is seldom or 
never used by English writers. 

" For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and phi- 
losophy from reading the Bible, and profiting of that 
lecture, but the stumbling-block of absolute inspiration ?" 
— Geddes. " To profit of" is a Gallicism; it should be, 
" profiting by.' 1 



326 CRITICAL REMARKS 



SECTION VII. 

THE CONJUNCTION. 



SOLECISM. 



" A system of theology, involving such absurdities, can 
be maintained, I think, by no rational man, much less by 
so learned a man as him." Conjunctions having no go- 
vernment, the word as ought not to be joined with an ob- 
jective case. It should be, " so learned a man as he" the 
verb is being understood. 

" Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than 
him." — Smollet. According to the grammatical con- 
struction of the latter clause, it means, " I understand 
poetry better, than I understand him." This, however, 
is not the sentiment which the writer intended to convey. 
The clause should proceed thus, " I understand poetry 
better than he ;" that is, " than he understands it." Those, 
who contend for the use of than as a preposition, and 
justify the phraseology which is here censured, must at 
least admit, that to construe than, as a preposition, creates 
ambiguity. Thus, when it is said, " you think him hand- 
somer than me" it would be impossible to determine whe- 
ther the meaning is, "you think him handsomer than I 
think him," or " you think him handsomer than you 
think me." 

" There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to have 
others to admire and praise their performances, though 
they are never so trivial." Here there are two errors. 
The comparative more is followed by as, instead of than ; 
and the adverb never is improperly used for ever. " How 
trivial so ever." It should be, " There is nothing that 
pleases mankind more, than," &c. 

Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, de- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 327 

sirous to avoid error, should carefully observe, whether 
the predicate be applicable to the two subjects, connected 
by the conjunction, or to speak more generally, whether the 
two nouns be dependent on the same verb or preposition, 
expressed or understood. " The lover got a woman of 
greater fortune than her he had missed." — Addison, 
Guardian. This sentence, if not acknowledged to be un- 
grammatical, is at least inelegant. The pronoun should 
have been introduced. If than be considered as having 
the power of a preposition, the charge of solecism is pre- 
cluded ; but if than be a conjunction, he should have said, 
" than she, whom he had missed.'" For, as Lowth ob- 
serves, there is no ellipsis of the verb got, so that the pro- 
noun he?' cannot be under its government. The meaning 
is not, " The lover got a woman of greater fortune, than 
he got her, whom he missed," for this would be a contra- 
diction, but " of greater fortune, than she was. 11 In like 
manner in the following passage : 

" Nor hope to be myself less miserable, 
By what I seek, but others to make 
Such as I." —Milton. 

Bentley says, that it should be me. We concur with 
Dr. Lowth in rejecting this correction, and approving the 
expression of Milton. There is no ellipsis of the verb 
make ; others and / are not under the government of the 
same word. The meaning is not " to make others such, 
as to make me," but such as " I am" the substantive verb 
being understood. 

In the following passage, on the contrary, the ellipsis 
seems evident : " I found none so fit as him to be set in 
opposition to the father of the renowned city of Rome." 
It has been contended, that the author should have said, 
" as he," and not " as him ;" but it appears to me, that 
the verb found is understood in the secondary clause, and 
that the expression is correct, the sense being, "'I found 
none so fit, as I found him." 



3%8 CRITICAL REMARKS 

In the following passage the two subjects belong to the 
same verb. 

" The sun, upon the calmest sea, 

Appears not half so bright as thee." — Prior. 

It ought to be, " as thou ;" that is, " as thou appearest." 

" So as," and " as, as, 1 ' though frequently, have not 
always the same import. " These things,*" said Thales to 
Solon, who was lamenting the supposed death of his son, 
" which strike down so firm a man as you, have deterred me 
from marriage." The expression clearly refers to Solon ; 
but, if he had said " as firm a man as you," it might 
have referred to a different person from Solon, but a man 
of equal fortitude. 

" For ever in this humble cell, 

Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell.'* 
The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, the 
conjunction connecting an objective with a nominative 
case, or to speak more correctly, the pronoun of the first 
person, which should be a regimen to the verb understood, 
being here in the nominative case. Thus, " let thee," and 
" let I, my fair one, dwell," instead of "let thee, and let me." 
" Let us make a covenant, I and thou." — Bible. The 
error here, though similar, does not come under precisely 
the same predicament with the former. The pronoun us 
is very properly in the objective case, after the verb 
let ; I and thou should therefore be in the same case, ac- 
cording to Rule vii. of Syntax. The expression is in fact 
elliptical, and when completed proceeds thus, " Let us 
make a covenant : let me and thee make." 

" Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by 
the things which he suffered." The first clause is intend- 
ed to express a fact, not a hypothesis ; the verb, there- 
fore, should be in the indicative mood. Conjunctions 
have no government, either of cases or moods. 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" If in case he come, all will be well." //'and in case 
are synonymous, the one meaning " suppose," and the 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 329 

other, "on the supposition." One of them, therefore, is 
redundant. 

" The reason of my desiring to see you was, because I 
wanted to talk with you." Because means " by reason ;" 
the expression, therefore, is chargeable with redundancy. 
It should be, " that I wanted to talk with you" 

" No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but the 
old gentleman rushed into the room." — Martinus Scrib. 
The comparative is here improperly followed by bat, in- 
stead of than. 

" Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, 
than it was attacked." Than is employed after compara- 
tives only, and the word other. It ought to be " scarce," 
or, for reasons formerly given, " scarcely had the Spirit of 
Laws made its appearance, when it was attacked," or " no 
sooner — than." 

" The resolution was not the less fixed, that the secret 
was as yet communicated to very few, either in the French 
or English court." This passage from Hume I have not 
been able to find. Priestley observes, that it involves a 
Gallicism, the word that being used instead of as. If 
the meaning intended be, that some circumstances, pre- 
viously mentioned, had not shaken the resolution, because 
the secret was as yet known to few, then Priestley's ob- 
servation is correct ; and the word as should be substi- 
tuted for that, to express the cause of the firmness. But, 
if the author intended to say, that the very partial dis- 
covery of the secret had not shaken the resolution, the 
clause is then perfectly correct. According to the former 
phraseology, the circumstance subjoined operated as a 
cause, preventing the resolution from being shaken : ac- 
cording to the latter, it had no effect, or produced no 
change of theprevious determination. In other words, " the 
less fixed that," implies that the subject of the following 
clause did not affect that of the preceding ; " the less fixed 
«s" denotes, that the latter circumstance contributed to 
the production of the former. As it is obvious, that, in 
such examples, the definite article may refer either to the 



330 CRITICAL REMARKS 

antecedent or the subsequent clause, the distinction, here 
specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be carefully 
observed. # 

" His donation was the more acceptable, that it was 
given without solicitation." That the word that is fre- 
quently used for because cannot be questioned ; thus, " I 
am glad that you have returned safe," that is, " because 
you have returned safe." 

" 'Tis not that I love you less 
Than when before your feet I lay." — Waller. 

Here that is equivalent to because. English writers, 
however, after a comparative employ as or because, to de- 
note, that the circumstance subjoined was the cause of the 
preceding one. The use of that in such examples is ac- 
counted a Scotticism ; it should, therefore, be, " his dona- 
tion was the more acceptable, as" or " because it was given 
without solicitation." 

" His arguments on this occasion had, it may be pre- 
sumed, the greater weight, that he had never himself 
entered within the walls of a playhouse." — Stewarfs Life 
of Robertson. 

" A mortification, the more severe, that the joint au- 
thority of the archduke and the infanta governed the 
Austrian Netherlands." — Thomson's continuation of Wat- 
son's History. 

These sentences are chargeable with the same error; 
and, it is not a little remarkable, though the impropriety 
has been pointed out again and again, that there is scarcely 
a Scotch writer, not even among those of the highest name, 

* A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscrimi- 
nate use of quod. This may be prevented by employing quoniam when 
the. succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the pre- 
ceding subject. Thus, " Nee consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam 
secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum," where the eo refers 
to a preceding circumstance. " Nee consilium eo minus erat firmum 
quod/' where the eo refers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseo- 
logy affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS, 331 

who is not chargeable with the frequent commission of 
this error. 

" On the east and west sides it (America) is washed by 
the Atlantic and Pacific oceans." — Robertson. This mode 
of expression is incorrect ; and, though to the geographer 
intelligible, it strictly conveys a conception not intended 
by the author. The copulative joins the two sides, which 
ought to be separated ; and combines the two seas, instead 
of the two facts, implying, that both sides are washed by 
the same two oceans. It should be rather, " On the east 
side it is washed by the Atlantic, and on the west (is 
washed) by the Pacific ocean."" 

" Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as old, 
or even older than tradition ?" — Bolingbroke. Here there 
is a faulty omission of the particle corresponding to as ; 
for the positive and comparative cannot be followed by the 
same conjunction. It ought to be " as old as, or even 
older than, tradition ;" or, perhaps, better, " as old as 
tradition, or even older." 

" The books were to have been sold as this day." This 
is a most offensive vulgarism. The conjunction as can 
have no regimen ; nor can it be properly used as equiva- 
lent to on. It ought to be " sold this day," or " on this 
day." 

" It is supposed, that he must have arrived at Paris as 
yesterday." This sentence is chargeable with the same 
error. Construed strictly, it is, " he must have arrived at 
Paris as, or in like manner as, he arrived yesterday." 

" The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he 
ought to have done." Propriety of correspondence here 
requires with that to be followed by with which, instead of 
as. The sentence, even thus corrected, would be still in- 
elegant and clumsy. " The duke had not behaved with 
becoming loyalty," would be much better. 

" In the order as they lie in his preface." This involves 
a similar impropriety. It should be, " in order as," or 
" in the order, in which they lie in his preface." 



332 CRITICAL REMARKS 

"No; this is not always the case neither. " — Beattie. 

" Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which are 
thought innate, till they come to the use of reason ; nor 
then neither." — Locke. 

In old English two negatives denied ; hence, perhaps, 
this phraseology originated. Johnson remarks, that the 
use of neither, after a negative, and at the end of a sen- 
tence, though not grammatical, renders the expression 
more emphatic. Analogy, however, is decidedly in favour 
of the affirmative term ; I, therefore, prefer the word 
" either." Were Johnson's argument admitted, such ex- 
pressions as these, " I forbade you not to go;" " I won't 
suffer no such thing;" " He would not have none of my 
assistance,"' 1 might, I apprehend, be justified on the same 
principle. Those who employ them, doubtless, believe 
them to be more emphatic, than if they included a single 
negative. 

" This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will serve 
to illustrate the principles above laid down." — Campbell 
on Rhetoric. This sentence involves an error, on which 
I have already animadverted. " The rather''' should be 
followed by as, not that. 

" This is another use, that in my opinion contributes 
rather to make a man learned than wise ; and is neither 
capable of pleasing the understanding or imagination." 
Lowth justly observes, that or is here improperly used for 
nor, the correlative words being neither, nor. In addition 
to this observation, I remark, that the word neither is 
erroneously placed. To render this collocation of the 
conjunction correct, there should be another attributive 
opposed to the word " capable," as, " neither capable of 
pleasing the understanding, nor calculated to gratify the 
imagination." But, as the author intended to exclude two 
subjects, these should have been contrasted by the exclu- 
sive conjunctions, thus, " is capable of pleasing neither 
the understanding, nor the imagination." 

A similar error occurs in the following sentence : " Ad- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 333 

versity both taught you to think and reason." — Steele. 
The conjunction, which is, in truth, the adjective both, is 
improperly placed. It should be, " taught you both, 1 ' 
i. e. the two things, " to think and reason. 11 

It has been already observed, that the conjunction or is 
used disjunctively and subdisjunctively, sometimes denot- 
ing a diversity of things, and sometimes merely a differ- 
ence of names. Hence often arises ambiguity, where the 
utmost precision of expression is necessary.* When Rud- 
diman delivers it as a rule, that " verbal adjectives, or 
such as signify an affection of the mind, require the geni- 
tive," I have known the scholar at a loss to understand, 
whether there be two distinct classes of adjectives here in- 
tended, or one class under two designations. The ambi- 
guity might here be avoided, by using and or with instead 
of or. It may also be prevented in many cases, by more 
forcibly marking the distinction by the use of either. 
Thus, if we say, " whosoever shall cause, or occasion a 
disturbance,'' 1 it may be doubtful, whether the latter of the 
two verbs be not designed as explanatory of the former, 
they, though their meanings be distinct, being often used 
as synonymous terms. If we say, " shall either cause or 
occasion, 11 all doubt is removed. Sometimes ambiguity 
may be precluded either by the insertion, or the omission, 
of the article. Thus, if we say, " a peer, or lord of par- 
liament, 11 -!* meaning to designate only one individual, or 
one order, the expression is correct. But, if it be intend- 
ed to signify two individuals, every peer not being a lord 
of parliament, and every lord of parliament not being a 
peer, we should say, " a peer, or a lord of parliament, 11 or 
" either a peer, or lord of parliament.'' 

* In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because 
they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the 
loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used. 

f The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester, 
in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, "a peer, or 
lord of parliament." 



334 CRITICAL REMARKS 

Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate the 
etymology and syntax of the English language, I cannot 
dismiss the subject, without earnestly recommending to 
the classical student to cultivate a critical acquaintance 
with his native tongue. It is an egregious, but common 
error, to imagine, that a perfect knowledge of Greek and 
Latin precludes the necessity of studying the principles of 
English grammar. The structure of the ancient, and that 
of modern languages, are very dissimilar. Nay, the pe- 
culiar idioms of any language, how like soever in its 
general principles to any other, must be learned by study, 
and an attentive perusal of the best writers in that lan- 
guage. Nor can any imputation be more reproachful to 
the proficient in classical literature, than, with a critical 
knowledge of Greek and Latin, which are now dead lan- 
guages, to be superficially acquainted with his native 
tongue, in which he must think, and speak, and write. 

The superiority of Greek and Latin over the English 
language in respect of harmony, graceful dignity, concise- 
ness, and fluency, will be readily admitted. Our language 
is, comparatively, harsh and abrupt. It possesses strength, 
indeed; but unaccompanied with softness, with elegance, 
or with majesty. It must be granted also, that the Greek 
is, perhaps, a more copious, and is certainly a more duc- 
tile # and tractable language. But, though in these 
respects, the English be inferior to the languages of 
Greece and Rome, yet in preciseness of expression, diver- 
sity of sound, facility of communication, and variety of 
phrase, it may claim the pre-eminence. It would be easy 
to evince the truth of this assertion, did the limits, which 
I have prescribed to myself, permit. The fact is, that 

* The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, 
must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composi- 
tion or derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. 
Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are 
of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms i{ 
odometer," and many others. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 335 

analogous languages almost necessarily possess a superi- 
ority in these respects over those, which are transpositive. 

It is to be remembered also, that our language is sus- 
ceptible of high improvement ; and, though its abrupt and 
rugged nature cannot be entirely changed, much may be 
done to smooth its asperities and soften its harshness. 

As a farther inducement to the study of the English 
language, I would assure the young reader, that a due 
attention to accuracy of diction is highly conducive to 
correctness of thought. For, as it is generally true, that 
he, whose conceptions are clear, and who is master of his 
subject, delivers his sentiments with ease and perspi- 
cuity ;* so it is equally certain, that, as language is not 
only the vehicle of thought, but also an instrument of in- 
vention, if we desire to attain a habit of conceiving clearly 
and thinking correctly, we must learn to speak and write 
with accuracy and precision. 

It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to give 
our chief attention to mere phraseology, or to be more so- 
licitous about the accuracy of the diction than the value 
of the sentiment, is a sure indication of a nerveless and 
vacant mind. As we estimate a man, not by his garb, 
but by his intellectual and moral worth, so it is the sen- 
timent itself, not the dress in which it is exhibited, that 
determines its character, and our opinion of its author. 

" True expression, like th' unchanging sun, 
Clears and improves whate'er it shines upon ; 
It gilds all objects, but it alters none." — Pope. 

In short, the precept of Quintilian should be studiously 
observed ; " curam ergo verborum, rerum volo esse soli- 
citudinem." — Inst. Or at. lib. viii. 

* " Cui lecta potenter erit res, 
Nee facundia deseret hunc, nee lucidus ordo. 

" Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur." 

Hor. de Art. Poet. 

THE END. 



Published by the same Author. 

1. A^ESSAY on PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY, in one 
large volume, 8vo. 1793. 

2. LETTERS on the PRESENT STATE of the AGRI- 
CULTURAL INTEREST. 1816. 

3. A REPLY to the STRICTURES of the REV. JAMES 
GILCHRIST, on a Treatise on English Etymology and 
Syntax. 1817. 

4. A LETTER to D. RICARDO, ESQ. containing an Ana- 
lysis of his Pamphlet on the Depreciation of Bank Notes. 
1817. 

5. REPLIES to LETTERS addressed to him by DR. JAMES 
GREGORY, on the Subject of Philosophical Necessity, 8vo. 
1820. 

6. GYMNASIUM, sive, SYMBOLA CRITICA, in two vo- 
lumes, 8vo. third edition. 1834. 

7. CLAVIS GYMNASII, sive, Exercitationes in Symbolam 
Criticam, partim sicut in veteribus extant datse, et partim ab 

Auctore Latine redditae. 8vo. 1828. 

8. GYMNASIUM, sive, SYMBOLA CRITICA. Abridged. 
12mo. 1836. 

9. NATURAL THEOLOGY, or Essays on the Existence of 
Deity and of Providence, on the Immateriality of the Soul, 
and a Future State, in two large volumes, 8vo. 1829. 

10. A LETTER to LIEUT.-COL. TORRENS, M. P., in 
answer to his " Address to the Farmers of the United 
Kingdom." 1832. 

11. "THE STRIKE," or, A Dialogue between John Treadle 
and Andrew Plowman. 1834. 



LOVDON : 
PRINTED BV SAMUEL BENTLEY, 

Dorset Street, Fleet Street. 



»6 



Itoo ? 



■^ 



V * 



: Xv ( ^ v 






<i> A 



V <£*>. If 



V * 



> 



■• = ^ <£ 



1^ 







\0 






,0 o 






-^ ." \ 



o x 



^ V D 






'O, ,y 






^' <^> 



A O 







J1J 



<o ^ 



1.0 




; W 






V> 






S '^V V ?*/^ 







%* 



V 



,0 o 



i> 






V ,A * ° 



V 



-^ 







w 



\ v ■':.- 



d- 









.0 






? 2 y 



^ ^uv 




,0 ? c° N c ^ ^ 



A 



A N 4 v 



o o 1 



+j- <y 



p ^ 






/• 



xV 



'\' 






^' ^, 






kV -A 



: :;:j 



; ^% v : v> 



s\ 




■ o > .# 







- ^ v ^ v 







O 



^'^ 



^ ,#' 



^.^ 









:/o 









o V 






/' 



A' cP 



^ ' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

qS>. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

; Treatment Date: Oct. 2006 

,a^ : PreservationTechnologies 

^>, A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
<*£* ' m Thomson Park Drive 

Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
^ // , '"" s X \ (724)779-2111 




\U ^ 



« K * <& < '' , . S A 



& ^ 






^ ^ 






^F/ O.V 










c^ 



,0o 




' 0- av C' V *• Y * ° * ^> 

v*. 



. - 

A 9 ' 
A"" 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

iiiiii 




003 243 386 8 




